Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Megalodon on January 18, 2014, 09:46:14 AM
-
My wish is for the Tank busting planes to be allowed to take off from GV bases. Tank busters are part of the GV's game. I don't think its fair that GV's can run off to the corner of the map, or the center in this case, and get away from the planes and have their own little war. I don't care for the fact that GVer's don't have to join the game or have their own game inside the game where if they like can just go spawn and sit blasting away with no care about the planes. We have GV's on the air base we should have tank related planes at GV bases. There is already a hanger just need the re-arm pad.
Ju87G2
Yak-9T
Hurri IID
Ju87D-3
Il2
I like to shoot tanks I can't do that on allot of the maps or most of the time when I log in.... especially on Greebos Sanctuary map for GV's. Make it so we can shoot tanks anytime we like.
Put the air game back in the ground game,
:cheers:
-
Not that I support the idea, but...
Replace the Yak-9T (HE ammo and was considered a fighter not an attack aircraft) with the Hurricane Mk IId which was an anti-armor aircraft.
-
I've performed damage experiments against the wirbel with the Yak 9T. If you can manage a first pass and kill the turret. Then manage to get up about 2500ft, you can kill the wirbel shooting down at a steep angle into the engine hatch. But, if Hitech allows this wish, moving carpets of wirbel gardens will become the answer by the GVers to the granted wish. The Yak 9T is a great M3 chaser.
NS-37 37mm HE can crack 20mm rolled steal at 200m. The wirbel's engine hatch doors are 11mm.
-
I'd support this idea for AP armed aircraft only (Yak9-T is not one) as long as bombs are not enabled at GV bases, the bases were redesigned to include a runway and there was no rearm pad (you'd have GV's using it constantly).
-
Another poorly conceived wish to change the way other people play the game to favor your own methods.
The way the people that play AH for the armor game (only) already have issues with aspects of the game. Now you want to push them even further? Bad idea.
-
I've performed damage experiments against the wirbel with the Yak 9T. If you can manage a first pass and kill the turret. Then manage to get up about 2500ft, you can kill the wirbel shooting down at a steep angle into the engine hatch. But, if Hitech allows this wish, moving carpets of wirbel gardens will become the answer by the GVers to the granted wish. The Yak 9T is a great M3 chaser.
NS-37 37mm HE can crack 20mm rolled steal at 200m. The wirbel's engine hatch doors are 11mm.
So, which planes fire AP? :salute
-
So, which planes fire AP? :salute
Hurricane IID
Il-2 (both 37mm and 23mm guns)
Ju-87G
-
with the amount of whines from GVers about being killed by planes, I would think it would be a non issue.....
I have rolled from fields and been shot down by that unseen GV.....
dont think I ever went and got a bomb for him....
I hate shooting at GVs they are to close to the ground :rofl
but as far as OP wish.....
when I get my 4 20mm KI84 this is the next thing on list :aok
-
Another poorly conceived wish to change the way other people play the game to favor your own methods.
The way the people that play AH for the armor game (only) already have issues with aspects of the game. Now you want to push them even further? Bad idea.
I think we should push them right off a cliff.
-
Instead, give me a Mosquito XVIII with the Mollins 57mm AP cannon. That baby was originally a field anti-tank weapon, so it should be up to the job.
-
I think we should push them right off a cliff.
Fortunately you're not in control of the business model.
-
Fortunately you're not in control of the business model.
Yeah, because there are so many of us who feel we're getting our fifteen bucks worth out of flying around and staring at empty skies.
-
I've performed damage experiments against the wirbel with the Yak 9T. If you can manage a first pass and kill the turret. Then manage to get up about 2500ft, you can kill the wirbel shooting down at a steep angle into the engine hatch. But, if Hitech allows this wish, moving carpets of wirbel gardens will become the answer by the GVers to the granted wish. The Yak 9T is a great M3 chaser.
NS-37 37mm HE can crack 20mm rolled steal at 200m. The wirbel's engine hatch doors are 11mm.
I still haven't got anyone to help me test the wirble with a stuka :cry, I did have however a sortie were I got 10 flak kills ostie and wirb in a 190 D9 for some reason the stuka's 37mm in open play still seems to be a lot less effective than the Dora's, although there is still the possibility of lag affecting the 2 shots of the stuka, I still had a good 150 cannon rounds left in the Dora at the end of that sortie?
-
I still haven't got anyone to help me test the wirble with a stuka :cry, I did have however a sortie were I got 10 flak kills ostie and wirb in a 190 D9 for some reason the stuka's 37mm in open play still seems to be a lot less effective than the Dora's, although there is still the possibility of lag affecting the 2 shots of the stuka, I still had a good 150 cannon rounds left in the Dora at the end of that sortie?
In offline mode you can change what the drones are flying. I've set mine to various buffs for practicing attacking angles, or to all GVs for trying out the 410.
-
In offline mode you can change what the drones are flying. I've set mine to various buffs for practicing attacking angles, or to all GVs for trying out the 410.
Didn't know that. How does one do this?
-
Didn't know that. How does one do this?
Options/Arena Setup/Offline Drones :old:
-
-1 there was never planes stationed in armored viechle garrisons.
pre-request for planes are airfields... no airfield no planes.
That being said , I would support a idea which would enable us to set forward airfield bases lets say in exchange of some perk points
or lets say dropping a fixed number of field supports at certain place on the map...
of course this bases will allow only certain type of planes ...
they wont have any defenses and they will require constant supply runs to keep field running (for ammo and fuel).
Instead of being capture , this bases will be totally destroyed once hit with enough ords...
-
-1 Let GV guys have their bases and tank islands. You know if we bomb too much we take away from the GV guy's fun. Want to have a great time? Spot for them. They help out on our six calls all of the time.
Work on the spawn points next to the airfields.
-
This weekend we had the Crater MA map. Almost one half the player base was fighting at TT in GV's. That's almost half the player base I don't get to play with.
I don't GV ....I fly a Panzernacker. Why shouldn't I get to play the way I would like? Some one suggested I fly my JU87G2 over 25 miles and over the 16k mountains then drop in and get my tank kills. WHY? The GV's are not having to do the same, what with the spawn points all over the map, most just leading to another GV base!
I fly my plane all the way over there and get shot right away, now I have to spend another 30 min to get back? WHY? the GV's get shot and the are right back in 5 seconds. Why cant I just re-up at the GV base? It's a GV killing plane? It's not for fighting other planes? They are for shooting GV's!
Make it so a select few planes can play the GV game the way the GV's get to play.... that's what there here for.
Why should I be eliminated from a chance at 40% of the player base I pay to play with?
Edit:
The Yak 9T proved very effective against armor and ships... built for it or not and gives one fast plane to handle flaks ..so I would leave it. When and if we ever get the Hs-129 that may be a substitute.
Bombs I could take or leave those ......Historically not correct.... but for the chance at having planes on GV bases I would consider removing those. That would take out the Ju87D-3 which I don't believe is right. I haven't tried the HurrD so I'm not sure how that is with flaks. I don't bomb**** period. If the GV's are to far away like at FT I will take a P-40n with 3 eggs and try to pick off moving tanks at FT... that's not bomb****ing. Mostly and 2000 <1996> :x kills so far with a JU87G2.
I'm pretty sure HT could coad the New GvBase/Supply and Plane Fix ...rearm pad to be specific to those few planes only. Just like the GV's get with supplys and all. :aok
:cheers:
-
-1 Let GV guys have their bases and tank islands. You know if we bomb too much we take away from the GV guy's fun. Want to have a great time? Spot for them. They help out on our six calls all of the time.
Work on the spawn points next to the airfields.
Originally it was FT Island ......newbie :neener:
I want to have an even greater time :aok ...... I want to SHOOT them with a plane made for SHOOTING them. :aok
What if there are no spawns to the airfields.... then what ?
:cheers:
-
About as far as aircraft at a Vbase should go is the Fw 189 Uhu. 2 20mm cannons and 4 50kg bombs.
-
-1
:headscratch:
-
-1 :huh
-
-1 :huh
Oh common Jimmy ....get out of the dweebfire and have some good O'le fashion fun plinking a few tanks in some german iron.... :D
Go get you leather on, :O
-
+1 tank busters at gv bases without ords...there is no shame in bomb***ding...I have lost many a tiger to this and I'm not gonna lie it infuriates me but oh well...its not like I cant gain the perks back in a few sorties or just bring a fighter back to kill the @#$%$#@ who just bombed my tank :)
-
My wish is for the Tank busting planes to be allowed to take off from GV bases. Tank busters are part of the GV's game. I don't think its fair that GV's can run off to the corner of the map, or the center in this case, and get away from the planes and have their own little war. I don't care for the fact that GVer's don't have to join the game or have their own game inside the game where if they like can just go spawn and sit blasting away with no care about the planes. We have GV's on the air base we should have tank related planes at GV bases. There is already a hanger just need the re-arm pad.
Ju87G2
Yak-9T
Hurri IID
Ju87D-3
Il2
I like to shoot tanks I can't do that on allot of the maps or most of the time when I log in.... especially on Greebos Sanctuary map for GV's. Make it so we can shoot tanks anytime we like.
Put the air game back in the ground game,
:cheers:
Wow, that is one terrible idea. -1
-
+1
-
In Greebo's TT, the wribel drivers would have a shooting gallery. Without bomb's, winning against a lone wirbel is about a 30-70 in favor of the wribel. Consider a pack of them knowing they don't have to move, just use the camped tanks as bait. And all those supplies everyone M3's into there. I love wirbeling at TT right after I run two sets of supplies.
Then at normal GV bases, the GV busters become easy mode kills for newbies in late war iron while the smart GV spawners bring along a few wirbels. Moral to the story: Kill the fighter hanger first.
And limit the GV hunters to 25% or 50% fuel so they are a local expression of force. First time someone long range camps that hanger and sniper kills all GV hunters trying to take off. Oh the inhumanity of those evil long range GVers with their uber optics not giving us a chance whines. Be a nice target for bombers on their first pass to rack up kills.
-
A lot of the 40% that you don't get to fight on one single map are regular peelots on the other maps. I know, I'm one of 'em, Greebo TT is good for awhile, but then I go see what I can find in a ftr. Push their gv fun on one map out of existence and do you think they'll stay around AH?
With so much to do, so many choices in our modern world, I doubt they'd stay if they felt they weren't much welcome anymore.
-
In Greebo's TT, the wribel drivers would have a shooting gallery. Without bomb's, winning against a lone wirbel is about a 30-70 in favor of the wribel. Consider a pack of them knowing they don't have to move, just use the camped tanks as bait. And all those supplies everyone M3's into there. I love wirbeling at TT right after I run two sets of supplies.
Then at normal GV bases, the GV busters become easy mode kills for newbies in late war iron while the smart GV spawners bring along a few wirbels. Moral to the story: Kill the fighter hanger first.
And limit the GV hunters to 25% or 50% fuel so they are a local expression of force. First time someone long range camps that hanger and sniper kills all GV hunters trying to take off. Oh the inhumanity of those evil long range GVers with their uber optics not giving us a chance whines. Be a nice target for bombers on their first pass to rack up kills.
Gv's at Greebos or any TT/FT don't give a care about the "Game". They don't have to engage in the "Game" all they have to do is push the button die and push another button die repeat, they could care less about the "game"... matter fact they will go out of there way not to help their teammates or should I say help out their fellow GV'ers, in different to sides in the game.
Yesterday map was up... FT with Tanks in the middle. The rook air base was taken but not the vbase by the bish. The rook gv'ers could have come and help regain the base by spawning to a1 instead of spawning in the middle , a couple did, the rest couldn't care less. There was no place else to kill GV's on the map for GV's or Planes. So they just hammer on.... caring less about their teammates that wanted to fly at FT. This not only helps them <more to shoot> but helps their fellow GV'er on the other sides <planes gone>. So everything is good in the GV world :aok
Then the HQ goes down... do the GVers come to help ... nope they don't need dar. ....just sit there blasting away over and over and over.... safe and sound, secure tucked away from the big bad "Game" and its planes. There like parasites sucking the life out of the game. They can run off to some corner and blast away by the hundreds. When there is no TT there will be 2 fights some where on the map. Some where tucked away... 2 GV bases next to each other or a spawn between two country's GV base or on an island.....We don't get to play away from them why do they get to play away from us?
Do I really care? ... yes/nope... I just logged. Can you blame me? I mean.... I just want to go play where all the folks are ... in my PLANE!
So.... in a "Air Combat Simulation Game" the Airplane pilot's are the ones that leave or if they want to play grab a GV? The GV's get stay and blast away? We are worried about the GV'ers leaving? We are worried about every one leaving? Put every one back together. Brand this thing "Aces Low" and get on with it?
Well.... I just want to join the GV's and add some more spice to "their game". Break up their push, fire, die monotony, and throw a look up once in awhile in there... pretty soon they will be the majority and the air game will be dead, they will need us, if its not that way already. Least it will be easy maintenance we'll only need 3 bases in the future :frown:
Let's get everyone back together.... tell the statistician to scram ....and put the fun for everyone back in the game. Just like the strait, move everyone was having fun again. Hell I actually got a few runs on a strait.
And Buster I hope my "Air Tank" makes every last one of them jump in their flak panzies....cupola commander cheese cakes scaredicats .... :furious
Planes rule and GV's drool,
:cheers:
-
Hmmmm.....I don't see the air side of this game dying at all...I don't see the gv side of this game changing at all either....what I do see are several different aspects of gaming that you can choose from...you can bomb ground targets, you can bomb gvs, you can hunt the bombers in fighters, you can use fighter/bombers to destroy ground targets, you can use fighter/bombers to hunt gvs...do I need to go on? do you want to dogfight? I have no trouble finding dogfights...what do you want? I don't get it....are you jealous of the gvers?...gving is a blast and a great way to get away from the old ho/pick/vulch....I just don't understand, maybe my redneck brain can't comprehend...maybe its just I can actually find a fun time in this game anytime I log on...
-
Hmmmm.....I don't see the air side of this game dying at all...I don't see the gv side of this game changing at all either....what I do see are several different aspects of gaming that you can choose from...you can bomb ground targets, you can bomb gvs, you can hunt the bombers in fighters, you can use fighter/bombers to destroy ground targets, you can use fighter/bombers to hunt gvs...do I need to go on? do you want to dogfight? I have no trouble finding dogfights...what do you want? I don't get it....are you jealous of the gvers?...gving is a blast and a great way to get away from the old ho/pick/vulch....I just don't understand, maybe my redneck brain can't comprehend...maybe its just I can actually find a fun time in this game anytime I log on...
Nope.... I just want to play with the GV's I just don't understand, maybe my laidback SoCal brain can't comprehend...maybe its just I can actually find a fun time in this game anytime I log on...
Yep that's it,
-
Wow, that is one terrible idea. -1
Believe it or not there is an achievement for killing tanks :O .......I think that achievement should be more accessible to the masses. Panzernackers should be added to the GV bases ...it's a fantastic idea :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHCocpH8maM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHCocpH8maM)
:cheers:
-
Believe it or not there is an achievement for killing tanks :O .......I think that achievement should be more accessible to the masses. Panzernackers should be added to the GV bases ...it's a fantastic idea :)
Don't get me wrong, I am all for having tank busting planes at gv fields...and I am still trying to get that achievement :lol
-
-1 not a fan...
-
I don't care for the fact that GVer's don't have to join the game or have their own game inside the game where if they like can just go spawn and sit blasting away with no care about the planes.
+1
Either remove GVs from the game, or make them join the real game instead of playing 'Tankers High'
-
+1
Either remove GVs from the game, or make them join the real game instead of playing 'Tankers High'
You mean make airfield ownership tied to the state of the ground war? Fantastic idea!!!
I've always thought i was utter horse crap that aircraft play such a large role in the game, when they were merely support assets during WWII. Always about the boots on the ground :cheers:.
-
there is die hard tankers just like there is diehard bombers and diehard fighters i don't like the idea i am not a GV'r by any means but i watch them get bombed enough as it is why would you wanna make it even harder for them? to force them into the skies? well some play this game to GV only just like some play for fighter/bombers only you ever think about how many may leave the game because they cant GV anymore because soon as they spawn they gotta fight off the planes? if you ever watch any GV battles it is 99% tanks very few wirbs setting in a tank fight why is that? because they stand little to no chance against a tank so very few park a wirb to cover the Tanks most wirbs in game are spotted either on a Vbase for defense or the airfield to break a vulch, and greebo's MA map does have alot of GV action why? because it takes awhile for the planes to get to them so the GV while it last there still is a few that bomb there too but not as many because it takes too long for most to climb up there. planes vs Ground vehicles the tanks dont stand a chance as it is now no need to make it any harder on them.
-
+1
Either remove GVs from the game, or make them join the real game instead of playing 'Tankers High'
Implying that GV'ers don't play the "game" is rather silly and it nothing more than someone trying to get someone else to play how the first person wants the others to play. It is no different than the "Win the War" crowd crying how furballers don't play the game by not helping take bases and just mindlessly furball. FF's 'wish' is just another thinly veiled whine.
ack-ack
-
there is die hard tankers just like there is diehard bombers and diehard fighters i don't like the idea i am not a GV'r by any means but i watch them get bombed enough as it is why would you wanna make it even harder for them? to force them into the skies? well some play this game to GV only just like some play for fighter/bombers only you ever think about how many may leave the game because they cant GV anymore because soon as they spawn they gotta fight off the planes? if you ever watch any GV battles it is 99% tanks very few wirbs setting in a tank fight why is that? because they stand little to no chance against a tank so very few park a wirb to cover the Tanks most wirbs in game are spotted either on a Vbase for defense or the airfield to break a vulch, and greebo's MA map does have alot of GV action why? because it takes awhile for the planes to get to them so the GV while it last there still is a few that bomb there too but not as many because it takes too long for most to climb up there. planes vs Ground vehicles the tanks dont stand a chance as it is now no need to make it any harder on them.
The argument don't hold water .......The idea that they can die a 1000 deaths to a tank or another GV but ........ When a plane come along wha ... WHAT :eek: Oh :frown: OH NO!! :mad: OMG!!! :mad: BOOM!!! FUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious
Is just a joke,
:cheers:
-
Implying that GV'ers don't play the "game" is rather silly and it nothing more than someone trying to get someone else to play how the first person wants the others to play. It is no different than the "Win the War" crowd crying how furballers don't play the game by not helping take bases and just mindlessly furball. FF's 'wish' is just another thinly veiled whine.
ack-ack
LOL It's a whine ........ to want GV killers to play with GV's there supposed to kill ... you ARE stupid!
I'm sure you are more thinly veiled then I... drop child.
:cheers:
-
You mean make airfield ownership tied to the state of the ground war? Fantastic idea!!!
I've always thought i was utter horse crap that aircraft play such a large role in the game, when they were merely support assets during WWII. Always about the boots on the ground :cheers:.
I always thought it was utter horse crap that there are so many cars in GTA, when in real life most peoples cars are parked outside their place of work.
The game is called Aces High, I would suggest that there is a requirement for at least a few aircraft or people would be disappointed.
Of course aircraft were merely support assets in WW2, especially during B-O-B, and Midway and the Pacific Campaigns, wonder they bothered with them at all! :huh
-
You guys are conveniently forgetting that with only guns in a GV hunter, many GVers from commander mode are single shot wonders and don't need a wirbel to protect them. The OP didn't ask for bombs, just guns. If we didn't have our gamey commander 1 shot skeet shooting mode, I wouldn't be supporting the OP.
-
You guys are conveniently forgetting that with only guns in a GV hunter, many GVers from commander mode are single shot wonders and don't need a wirbel to protect them. The OP didn't ask for bombs, just guns. If we didn't have our gamey commander 1 shot skeet shooting mode, I wouldn't be supporting the OP.
do it correctly, they cannot hit you.
most people have no concept of how steep is steep enough trying to bust tanks with guns only
ie. treetop level is dead wrong. :lol
-
Tank busting with planes is an art just like dive bombing...I still stand by my +1 of allowing tankbusters at gv fields as it would get mitigate the probability of a spawn camp that cannot be broken...but the idea of the gvers not playing the "game" while they are in TT is just out there man... :rolleyes:
-
You guys are conveniently forgetting that with only guns in a GV hunter, many GVers from commander mode are single shot wonders and don't need a wirbel to protect them. The OP didn't ask for bombs, just guns. If we didn't have our gamey commander 1 shot skeet shooting mode, I wouldn't be supporting the OP.
Yeah, if you get hit with a tank shell, its ENTIRELY your own fault for being an idiot, and commander mode doesn't have anything to do with it. If you lack the intelligence to use a sensible attack profile (ie NOT low and slow), then you don't deserve to live.
-
do it correctly, they cannot hit you.
most people have no concept of how steep is steep enough trying to bust tanks with guns only
ie. treetop level is dead wrong. :lol
Tree top level is where you exit many times tho and most of my deaths in the Ju87G2 come from the dang trees... :lol
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/43830fad-b103-42b2-b4c2-58045184f175_zpsc4c836a9.png)
It's very hard to get tanks moving around trees or sitting nested in a real dense set of trees... I find I only need a small glimpse of a part of the tank to get it eventually...lining up several passes... sometimes requiring a reload or two.
:salute
-
Yeah, if you get hit with a tank shell, its ENTIRELY your own fault for being an idiot, and commander mode doesn't have anything to do with it. If you lack the intelligence to use a sensible attack profile (ie NOT low and slow), then you are apparently an idiot and don't deserve to live.
You really do spout some vitriolic nonsense don't you?
Judging by your tanking stats for the last few tours, and by your own standards (see above), you too are an idiot and apparently don't deserve to live. Maybe you weren't too far off the mark :rolleyes:
-
You really do spout some vitriolic nonsense don't you?
Judging by your tanking stats for the last few tours, and by your own standards (see above), you too are an idiot and apparently don't deserve to live. Maybe you weren't too far off the mark :rolleyes:
I haven't been tanking much. Sue me.
You fly nice and slow and level strait at an enemy's guns, and you expect not to get shot down? Human language simply lacks the words necessary to describe such a level of idiocy. Its truly incomprehensible to me how one could have such a simple and imbecilic line of reasoning, and yet have managed to not be struck by traffic. Its literally the same line of reasoning!
You expect tanks to just not fire at you, or just somehow miss you, despite being only moderately harder to hit than a stationary target. I can only assume you also expect traffic to just stop for you, or somehow happen to miss you while you waltz across a freeway.
-
:cry :cry Wah I sucj in a GV so I want everyone to play in planes! I cant tank so no one should be allowed too how dare those evil tankers try and have fun at TANKTOWN while im getting my asss handed to me all over the skies. :cry :cry
Fixed. -Stodd
-
I haven't been tanking much. Sue me.
You fly nice and slow and level strait at an enemy's guns, and you expect not to get shot down? Human language simply lacks the words necessary to describe such a level of idiocy. Its truly incomprehensible to me how one could have such a simple and imbecilic line of reasoning, and yet have managed to not be struck by traffic. Its literally the same line of reasoning!
You expect tanks to just not fire at you, or just somehow miss you, despite being only moderately harder to hit than a stationary target. I can only assume you also expect traffic to just stop for you, or somehow happen to miss you while you waltz across a freeway.
Honestly, I have read this 4 times and frankly I still cannot make head nor tail of this gibberish.
I too don't tank much, primarily because I have been involved in RL armoured operating since 1993, and the AH game bears absolutely not the slightest similarity to RL. But I cannot fail to draw proper inference from your posts, that you are an avid and successful in game GV'er. Stats suggest quite the opposite.
-
Honestly, I have read this 4 times and frankly I still cannot make head nor tail of this gibberish.[/quite]
Simple. You do stupid and high-risk things in game, you can expect to be killed as a result, same as in life. If you don't like being killed, stop being stupid; that's you're only option while continuing to play the game.
I too don't tank much, primarily because I have been involved in RL armoured operating since 1993, and the AH game bears absolutely not the slightest similarity to RL. But I cannot fail to draw proper inference from your posts, that you are an avid and successful in game GV'er. Stats suggest quite the opposite.
I used to be an avid GV'er. Not the best, but one of the better ones. However its worn thin lately, given the limited map rotation, camping, etc. TT's are fun for a while, but without some objective to push for, just shooting back and forth grows old after a while.
However just because GV'ing has held less fun for me of late doesn't mean I wish to see it ruined by idiots and whiners.
-
If this is implemented, most players will feed themselves to the tank commander position because the Ju87-G2 and IL2 were not designed to be flown in the gyrations we go through in the game to get guns on the target long enough to make the shooting work and not get fragged by the commander every pass. The tank commander is in indestructible mode, so he doesn't pay a price for his upper body sticking out of the hatch during a strafing run, with a giant sight ring to aim his personal big gun into the attackers face. Isn't that a modern 21st century tank aiming device for the commander only possible with computers? Almost a lead computing gunsight enabled but, for tanks.
The Ju87-G2 and Il2 in real life during guns runs against tanks, didn't attack from a dive bomb 60-90 degree attitude. And the commander zipped himself up to not get killed. He didn't hang out of the hatch skeet shooting tank hunters during their guns run.
The gyrations we go through to beat the single shot dead eye'd dork commander mode self air defense, didn't happen in real life. The planes would have been designed differently, or not at all. Effective gun range against armor was 437yds(400m) and closer. Instead, bombs and PTAB took care of the issue in real life.
At 437yds(400m) attacking from 60-90 degrees, many Ju87-G2 and IL2 pilots in the game auger. Shallower, many feed themselves to the indestructible tank commander.
Maybe Hitech should make commanders killable but, give the Gver a formation mode where they can choose an M16, osti, or wirbel to slave along with them. Then hop into the tank guns zipping up the hatch or the towed anti air vehicle.
As is, if this isn't changed. Allowing guns only tank hunters to up from GV bases will just give the tanks free kills.
-
The OP didn't ask for bombs, just guns.
Wrong. Then why was the Stuka dive bomber on his original list? He was going to kill tanks with a 7.9mm machine gun?
-
Wrong. Then why was the Stuka dive bomber on his original list? He was going to kill tanks with a 7.9mm machine gun?
WRONG!
Historically the Stuka D-3 dive bomber was used on tanks if you will read a little farther down Baldy, you will see I said I don't think it would be historically correct but could go for no bombs.
-
Fixed. -Stodd
:rofl :rofl
Anytime :)
:cheers:
-
If this is implemented, most players will feed themselves to the tank commander position because the Ju87-G2 and IL2 were not designed to be flown in the gyrations we go through in the game to get guns on the target long enough to make the shooting work and not get fragged by the commander every pass. The tank commander is in indestructible mode, so he doesn't pay a price for his upper body sticking out of the hatch during a strafing run, with a giant sight ring to aim his personal big gun into the attackers face. Isn't that a modern 21st century tank aiming device for the commander only possible with computers? Almost a lead computing gunsight enabled but, for tanks.
The Ju87-G2 and Il2 in real life during guns runs against tanks, didn't attack from a dive bomb 60-90 degree attitude. And the commander zipped himself up to not get killed. He didn't hang out of the hatch skeet shooting tank hunters during their guns run.
The gyrations we go through to beat the single shot dead eye'd dork commander mode self air defense, didn't happen in real life. The planes would have been designed differently, or not at all. Effective gun range against armor was 437yds(400m) and closer. Instead, bombs and PTAB took care of the issue in real life.
At 437yds(400m) attacking from 60-90 degrees, many Ju87-G2 and IL2 pilots in the game auger. Shallower, many feed themselves to the indestructible tank commander.
Maybe Hitech should make commanders killable but, give the Gver a formation mode where they can choose an M16, osti, or wirbel to slave along with them. Then hop into the tank guns zipping up the hatch or the towed anti air vehicle.
As is, if this isn't changed. Allowing guns only tank hunters to up from GV bases will just give the tanks free kills.
Thanx for your support,
It's not easy that's for sure ....besides the hidden laser beam flaks and the cupola commanders... still have to dodge all the pilots going for what they think will be an easy kill.....buffers rolling by trying to hit ya with their guns ....some times it's hard just to get to town or the spawn and the damn TREES. :lol ...this week I went over 2000 kills in the Ju87G2 since it was added in camp 150.
It would be so much better if WE the air pilots could up from the GV hangers in certain planes. You could bust the spawn camper hella lot more easy than dying 40 times till ya get a shot. I bet the GV'ers themselves would use it quite a bit.
Thanx again,
:salute
-
WRONG!
Historically the Stuka D-3 dive bomber was used on tanks if you will read a little farther down Baldy, you will see I said I don't think it would be historically correct but could for go no bombs.
Bustr said you didn't wish for bombs but only guns in your op. I was simply pointing out that you wished for a dive bomber so did, in fact, wish for bombs.
If you look back, I was the one who supported your idea but only for AP equipped aircraft and with no bombs available.
-
Bustr said you didn't wish for bombs but only guns in your op. I was simply pointing out that you wished for a dive bomber so did, in fact, wish for bombs.
If you look back, I was the one who supported your idea but only for AP equipped aircraft and with no bombs available.
He said the OP Not the OP in his opening post.
Yes I saw and I appreciate it.
I think having certain planes at GV bases would be a great new addition to game play and add more diversity to the game.
Thank you,
:salute
-
Remove aircraft icons for GV's.
-
Thanx for your support,
It's not easy that's for sure ....besides the hidden laser beam flaks and the cupola commanders... still have to dodge all the pilots going for what they think will be an easy kill.....buffers rolling by trying to hit ya with their guns ....some times it's hard just to get to town or the spawn and the damn TREES. :lol ...this week I went over 2000 kills in the Ju87G2 since it was added in camp 150.
It would be so much better if WE the air pilots could up from the GV hangers in certain planes. You could bust the spawn camper hella lot more easy than dying 40 times till ya get a shot. I bet the GV'ers themselves would use it quite a bit.
Thanx again,
:salute
I think the number of people shooting at aircraft from commander mode is MUCH lower than you think. I know I never used to use commander mode for ANY form of gunnery, save using the MG's to hose down troops.
Second, getting rid of the commander's aiming ring likely wouldn't affect their accuracy much, because as stated before, most aren't shooting from commander's view. And those that are just slaughtering aircraft with the main gun, as you claim, are obviously good enough they can do so without the aiming ring.
Add a delay between the command and when the turret moves, and it still won't solve your problem. Because, as previously stated, they aren't firing from commander mode, but are rather just pointing the gun at the target with commander mode, and firing from the gunsight.
I'll let you in on a little secret that isn't very secret; EVERY single aircraft death due to a tank's main gun is the direct and singular fault of the pilot of the aircraft. I guarantee that unless you take a way a tank's ability to fire, you will continue to die to tank shells, given your crap attack profile.
Bottom line, man the f**k up, and quit whining about how hard it is not to fly low and slow strait down a tank's gun barrel.
-
I think the number of people shooting at aircraft from commander mode is MUCH lower than you think. I know I never used to use commander mode for ANY form of gunnery, save using the MG's to hose down troops.
Second, getting rid of the commander's aiming ring likely wouldn't affect their accuracy much, because as stated before, most aren't shooting from commander's view. And those that are just slaughtering aircraft with the main gun, as you claim, are obviously good enough they can do so without the aiming ring.
Add a delay between the command and when the turret moves, and it still won't solve your problem. Because, as previously stated, they aren't firing from commander mode, but are rather just pointing the gun at the target with commander mode, and firing from the gunsight.
I'll let you in on a little secret that isn't very secret; EVERY single aircraft death due to a tank's main gun is the direct and singular fault of the pilot of the aircraft. I guarantee that unless you take a way a tank's ability to fire, you will continue to die to tank shells, given your crap attack profile.
Bottom line, man the f**k up, and quit whining about how hard it is not to fly low and slow strait down a tank's gun barrel.
Could you please provide me with just one single instance of a real tank shooting down a real aircraft with it's main gun?
-
Could you please provide me with just one single instance of a real tank shooting down a real aircraft with it's main gun?
Its entirely irrelevant, though there is a documented case of a Howitzer shooting down a plane.
(http://www.c-7acaribou.com/album/photos/Caribou_Ha_Thahn.jpg)
"This haunting photograph, which graced every Caribou briefing room, was a grim reminder that the Viet Cong and the NVA were not the only problem for pilots in Vietnam. This incident occurred in August of 1967 when the Caribou (tail number 62-4161) flew into the line of fire of a 155mm howitzer. This was early in the transition of the Caribou from the Army to the Air Force and highlighted the need for far better coordination amongst the services."
Now lets suppose that hypothetically, your argument of "It didn't happen in real lifez, make it stop :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry!!1" had some actual merit (and it does not, given that it contains two logical fallacies). How exactly do you propose we prevent this from happening, even if there was no historical precedent?
Should tank shells just not damage aircraft? That will never happen, since its gamey as hell, and frankly just downright moronic.
Give them crappier sights? No, their sights are historically accurate. Unless you want your aircraft nerfed for gameplay reasons, tanks won't be any less accurate.
Remove commander mode, or make it so you your turret doesn't follow you at all? No, that won't happen either. Saves HTC a lot of time on GV modeling, and its completely unhistorical, since the commander could give commands to the gunner.
Basically ReVo, you get shot down by a tank's main gun, you are an idiot. And are also an idiot if you think otherwise.
-
You get shot down because Hitech has made the feat possible and constantly repeatable. What you are doing is side stepping the issue and trying to move players along to: get over it and just adapt, I like this way.
It did not happen in real life with 10 years of ww2 across many country's with tanks like it does in our MA. If it did, tank shooter aircraft would not have been invented. And the ones that exist, do not allow the pilot the maneuverability or longer range gun to bring the guns to bare in our MA with the one constant all of them faced. They could not open fire until 400m or closer, and had to hold a steady straight path to hit the tank. Even the Hurri2D faced this problem.
Luck saw a few planes shot by a cannon or tank main gun. Less than 1% of the total shooting at airplanes for the whole 10 years of ww2.
We all accept a blind squirrel will find a few nuts before it starves to death. The MA is not populated by blind squirrels with bionic eyes.
-
You get shot down because Hitech has made the feat possible and constantly repeatable. What you are doing is side stepping the issue and trying to move players along to: get over it and just adapt, I like this way.
It did not happen in real life with 10 years of ww2 across many country's with tanks like it does in our MA. If it did, tank shooter aircraft would not have been invented. And the ones that exist, do not allow the pilot the maneuverability or longer range gun to bring the guns to bare in our MA with the one constant all of them faced. They could not open fire until 400m or closer, and had to hold a steady straight path to hit the tank. Even the Hurri2D faced this problem.
Luck saw a few planes shot by a cannon or tank main gun. Less than 1% of the total shooting at airplanes for the whole 10 years of ww2.
We all accept a blind squirrel will find a few nuts before it starves to death. The MA is not populated by blind squirrels with bionic eyes.
While I don't have a horse in this purse fight your logic is as faulty as his. Buffs didn't dogfight, c-47s didn't go vertical to dump paras, there wasn't rampant bomb and bail or lankstukas and all the other gamey stuff done every second in the MAs. Problem is it is a game and will always be a game regardless of how much realism is tried to be forced in. If it can be done in a game it will be done in a game, period. :salute
-
You get shot down because Hitech has made the feat possible and constantly repeatable. What you are doing is side stepping the issue and trying to move players along to: get over it and just adapt, I like this way.
It did not happen in real life with 10 years of ww2 across many country's with tanks like it does in our MA. If it did, tank shooter aircraft would not have been invented. And the ones that exist, do not allow the pilot the maneuverability or longer range gun to bring the guns to bare in our MA with the one constant all of them faced. They could not open fire until 400m or closer, and had to hold a steady straight path to hit the tank. Even the Hurri2D faced this problem.
Luck saw a few planes shot by a cannon or tank main gun. Less than 1% of the total shooting at airplanes for the whole 10 years of ww2.
We all accept a blind squirrel will find a few nuts before it starves to death. The MA is not populated by blind squirrels with bionic eyes.
Once again, I asked you to come up with a workable solution. Many others and I have asked the same thing in many similar threads, and yet you imbeciles have consistently failed to deliver. In most cases, you don't even make the attempt.
And once again, exactly what happened in WWII is largely irrelevant. HTC has given use the tools, recreated accurately to the best of their ability, and we are free to use them as we wish.
-
I'll let you in on a little secret that isn't very secret; EVERY single aircraft death due to a tank's main gun is the direct and singular fault of the pilot of the aircraft. I guarantee that unless you take a way a tank's ability to fire, you will continue to die to tank shells, given your crap attack profile.
This.
The kills I have made of aircraft by the main gun on a tank have all been from the gunsight, the aircraft first seen in the gunsight and the aircraft flying straight at me.
How am I supposed to feel bad about putting a 75mm AP round through an La-7 when all I can see in my sight when I pull the trigger is the engine and prop hub of an La-7? I couldn't freakin' miss.
Ok, I did kill a C-47 that wasn't flying straight at me and was some distance away. I had to fire five or so HE rounds before I got a hit, but it was using the gunsight against a slow, large airplane that wasn't all that far away.
Oh, I also killed Widewing's F4U-4 as it landed at a range of about 5k. Fired two HE rounds, first one fell long and the second hit the ground right under where the trailing edge of his right wing met the fuselage. That was an opportunity kill as I was actually there to shell the AA positions on the base. He got a TBM-3 with a 2000lb bomb and came and got revenge. :p
-
Could you please provide me with just one single instance of a real tank shooting down a real aircraft with it's main gun?
You'll have to do some searching in this forums but someone had posted an account from a German tank crew that used it's main gun to take down a Russian attack plane (think it was an IL2). I also posted an account from a Soviet tank commander that was a battalion commander in command of Soviet Sherman tanks. In his account, he briefly described how he and other Soviet Sherman tank commanders would place their Sherman tanks so they could use their main guns to fire at attacking German planes. He never said he shot any planes down this way but he did state that they did use their main guns to fire at attacking planes.
ack-ack
-
You'll have to do some searching in this forums but someone had posted an account from a German tank crew that used it's main gun to take down a Russian attack plane (think it was an IL2). I also posted an account from a Soviet tank commander that was a battalion commander in command of Soviet Sherman tanks. In his account, he briefly described how he and other Soviet Sherman tank commanders would place their Sherman tanks so they could use their main guns to fire at attacking German planes. He never said he shot any planes down this way but he did state that they did use their main guns to fire at attacking planes.
ack-ack
One incident does not qualify for anything in this game. One plane/tank built, one kill won't get a skin or a plane, one etc... is not a reason for a tank to shoot planes with ease everyday. Its another concession to the GV's just like the icon, capture the flag and awsd <XBOX>.
How bout some concession for the bored pilots in the off hours ...allow GV killers to fly from GV Bases :aok
-
One incident does not qualify for anything in this game. One plane/tank built, one kill won't get a skin or a plane, one etc... is not a reason for a tank to shoot planes with ease everyday. Its another concession to the GV's just like the icon, capture the flag and awsd <XBOX>.
How bout some concession for the bored pilots in the off hours ...allow GV killers to fly from GV Bases :aok
When did Spitfires fight P-51's, Typhoons, etc? When did 109's shoot down Ki-84's? The answer is never, even though it could have happened, had the two been fighting.
When did ground vehicles kill an aircraft? At least once, twice counting the howitzer, and was attempted numerous times.
Whats the difference?
-
Its entirely irrelevant, though there is a documented case of a Howitzer shooting down a plane.
(http://www.c-7acaribou.com/album/photos/Caribou_Ha_Thahn.jpg)
"This haunting photograph, which graced every Caribou briefing room, was a grim reminder that the Viet Cong and the NVA were not the only problem for pilots in Vietnam. This incident occurred in August of 1967 when the Caribou (tail number 62-4161) flew into the line of fire of a 155mm howitzer. This was early in the transition of the Caribou from the Army to the Air Force and highlighted the need for far better coordination amongst the services."
Now lets suppose that hypothetically, your argument of "It didn't happen in real lifez, make it stop :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry!!1" had some actual merit (and it does not, given that it contains two logical fallacies). How exactly do you propose we prevent this from happening, even if there was no historical precedent?
Should tank shells just not damage aircraft? That will never happen, since its gamey as hell, and frankly just downright moronic.
Give them crappier sights? No, their sights are historically accurate. Unless you want your aircraft nerfed for gameplay reasons, tanks won't be any less accurate.
Remove commander mode, or make it so you your turret doesn't follow you at all? No, that won't happen either. Saves HTC a lot of time on GV modeling, and its completely unhistorical, since the commander could give commands to the gunner.
Basically ReVo, you get shot down by a tank's main gun, you are an idiot. And are also an idiot if you think otherwise.
You get really touchy when people ask questions.. jesus.
-
You get really touchy when people ask questions.. jesus.
Propose a solution.
-
One incident does not qualify for anything in this game. One plane/tank built, one kill won't get a skin or a plane, one etc... is not a reason for a tank to shoot planes with ease everyday. Its another concession to the GV's just like the icon, capture the flag and awsd <XBOX>.
How bout some concession for the bored pilots in the off hours ...allow GV killers to fly from GV Bases :aok
It was actually two cases that were posted in various threads on this subject in these forums, not one. It does go to show that tanks did try and use their main guns to fire at attacking planes, and at least in one case (the German one), the tank crew scored a kill on an attacking plane that flew straight at them. I'm sure if someone digs around long enough, they'll find more instances where tanks tried to shoot down attacking planes with their main guns.
Being able to shoot down a plane with a tank's main gun in game isn't a concession to GV'ers. It's a result of players using crappy attack profiles and leave them open to being engaged by a tank's main gun. If you get shot down by a tank's main gun, it's your fault for attacking in such a manner that left you vulnerable. It's not a flaw of any sort of modeling with the game to make it easier on one playing segment, it's a flaw in your tactics.
Why don't you be honest for the reason of your wish? You want to make it easier for you to kill tanks so you can fly straight at them without having to worry about being shot down. Next, you'll whine how it was unrealistic for machine guns on tanks to shoot down attacking planes and want to have that nerfed as well.
ack-ack
-
Propose a solution.
I already have. Remove aircraft icons for GV's.
-
I already have. Remove aircraft icons for GV's.
To what end? This will be a MUCH bigger impediment to flackers than to those shooting planes with their main cannons.
Once you make a pass and let them know you're after them, they'er still gonna shoot you in the face with their cannon when you fly strait down their gun barrel.
Perhaps if we got rid of GV icons entirely for everything but the Storch (and future recon planes) so that the flackers can still remain at least semi effective at protecting other GV's.
-
I cannot see any consistent way for planes to be protected from tank main guns. Once the traverse rate, elevation rate, ballistics and site view angle have been modeled it is up to the players to use and avoid this stuff.
-
it shouldn't be remodeled, I have read it had happened......besides this is a game not WW2 if a 51 can shoot down a 51...as someone already mentioned....
don't fly into his reach he cant get you...seems simple really.
it would be far more gamey to make a plane invulnerable to a tank main gun....
-
Crap
Why don't you be honest for the reason of your wish? You want to make it easier for you to kill tanks so you can fly straight at them without having to worry about being shot down.
ack-ack
Cool then you will have no problem with the p-63 it had 2 kills.
I don't worry about being shot I could care less 51's shot planes spitfires shot planes Tanks didn't shoot planes. It just simply didn't happen. Its a Fake part of the game.
My wish has nothing to do with this ...... go read it. This is just something I agree with Buster about.
Why don't you go back to psychology class with Dr. Karnak before you start making up my wishes for me :aok
My Wish
Make Planes available from GV bases.... more to do in the game :aok
Because I like To,
-
Cool then you will have no problem with the p-63 it had 2 kills.
I have no issues with the P-63 being eventually added to the game. It did see combat during the war.
I don't worry about being shot I could care less 51's shot planes spitfires shot planes Tanks didn't shoot planes. It just simply didn't happen. Its a Fake part of the game.
Your posts indicate otherwise, or else you wouldn't be so rabid to nerf the ability of tanks firing at planes with their main guns. As pointed out in other threads on this subject, there were at least two accounts posted from German and Soviet tank crewmen about shooting at planes with their tanks main gun and in one case, scoring a kill. It did happen and it's not a fake part of the game, while you've failed each and every time to show tanks never used their main guns to fire at attacking airplanes.
You dismiss these accounts because it shows your claims to be groundless and exposes your wish to be nothing more than a whine because you don't want to get shot down.
Here is a clue to stop tanks from shooting down planes with their main gun. Don't fly directly at the tank so it's main gun can fire at you. Issue resolved.
ack-ack
-
Here is a clue to stop tanks from shooting down planes with their main gun. Don't fly directly at the tank so it's main gun can fire at you. Issue resolved.
ack-ack
Meanie.
-
Meanie.
:rofl
Best post in the thread :aok
-
I have no issues with the P-63 being eventually added to the game. It did see combat during the war.
Your posts indicate otherwise, or else you wouldn't be so rabid to nerf the ability of tanks firing at planes with their main guns. As pointed out in other threads on this subject, there were at least two accounts posted from German and Soviet tank crewmen about shooting at planes with their tanks main gun and in one case, scoring a kill. It did happen and it's not a fake part of the game, while you've failed each and every time to show tanks never used their main guns to fire at attacking airplanes.
You dismiss these accounts because it shows your claims to be groundless and exposes your wish to be nothing more than a whine because you don't want to get shot down.
Here is a clue to stop tanks from shooting down planes with their main gun. Don't fly directly at the tank so it's main gun can fire at you. Issue resolved.
ack-ack
Rabid
Your just wrong like normal and you don't worry how I fly Peaches. Eddie <Munster> the main gun don't bother me :) I rarely get shot by tanks it/ maybe 1 in 30 or 40 so. It is just a Fake part of the game.
It is not part of my wish but you keep bringing it up <shrug> :lol
If it bugs you so much make a wish, I mean you keep talking about it.
Try to stay on topic AckEddie
Put Planes Back in the GV Game :aok
Why? Because it's Fun
:cheers:
-
For example:
This week probable all week long :rolleyes: The current map Gv's on an Island. 30-40% of the player base. No incentive to join the Game at all.... in fact quite the opposite ....they strive to keep their little spots. They don't even need FT/TT on this map. I can't play with them. :frown:
3 spots I could play right now, instant action just as the GV's receive, if Panzernackers were enabled at GV bases.
Thank You,
:cheers:
-
For example:
This week probable all week long :rolleyes: The current map Gv's on an Island. 30-40% of the player base. No incentive to join the Game at all.... in fact quite the opposite ....they strive to keep their little spots. They don't even need FT/TT on this map. I can't play with them. :frown:
3 spots I could play right now, instant action just as the GV's receive, if Panzernackers were enabled at GV bases.
Thank You,
:cheers:
Why are you so upset that some people play a different game then you want? Also your wish is granted, you can join there fight with airplanes on this terrain.
HiTech
-
I cannot see any consistent way for planes to be protected from tank main guns. Once the traverse rate, elevation rate, ballistics and site view angle have been modeled it is up to the players to use and avoid this stuff.
What is the factor in R/L that prevented it from happening a lot, if any?
-
Also your wish is granted, you can join there fight with airplanes on this terrain.
HiTech
Hot damn Really?... your joking right? :x
Thank You
:salute
-
Ahhhh Yep you were :cry ...that wasn't nice HT there were no Tank killing planes available from vehicle bases.
I'm not upset HT ...don't buy in to Ack's dream... I have fun shooting tanks ...that's it. My wish just means more fun and allot of it. :)
I would like for myself and the rest of the community to be able to have more opportunities to play this way, be more representative and add a new facet to the game.... That all! ...I'm only asking for 4 planes that historically shot tanks or ground vehicles.
That's my wish... the main portion of the players in vehicles are to far to fly to in a stuka/Il2 <risk/reward> and that's one of the reasons it dosn't get more use ....GV's get spawn points to make their trip shorter...allot of time there is not much else I want to do.
I guess I should just log?
:salute,
Fin
-
What is the factor in R/L that prevented it from happening a lot, if any?
I'd be guessing, but....
I'd say that ammo was a precious commodity and you didn't want to throw it away on a low probability shot whereas is AH there is always more where that came from coupled with a much greater number of aircraft/tank interactions in AH coupled by much sloppier attack profiles by aircraft in AH coupled with players of a game not being scared by the attacking Il-2/Typhoon/Fw190F-8 whereas in reality the whole thing sucked.
-
I'd be guessing, but....
You do that quite a bit ....
I'd say it wasn't possible for the commander to take a shot.....
It wasn't possible for the gunner to track a plane.......
Take your and Ack's wish and make a new thread "Why Tanks should be able MainGun Kill Planes" and support all the factual evidence you have found.
Kindly stay on topic :)
Okay ... we have 3 different size air base with 4+ FH, with 1 VH....we have the V-base with 4 VH and 1 FH...Yes?
Do we limit the VH on the Airbase to 1 observation vehicle?
:cheers:
-
I'd say it wasn't possible for the commander to take a shot.....Y
Yes it was, he said "Fire".
It wasn't possible for the gunner to track a plane.......
Yes it was, he looked threw the gun sight and moved the turret.
HiTech
-
Gunners could also bore sight by looking down the barrel itself.
-
If I had any gripe about the ground war it would that Tank Town is designed to be free of aircraft but aircraft don't have a corresponding 'Fighter Town' where GVs are disabled.
Other than that, different strokes for different folks. I've tried camping, err GVing but it is endless waiting for very little action.
-
If I had any gripe about the ground war it would that Tank Town is designed to be free of aircraft
I don't know of any TT in the current rotaion being free of aircraft or even designed for it.
-
I don't know of any TT in the current rotaion being free of aircraft or even designed for it.
CraterMA. I believe there is one other but I can't think of it at the moment.
This isn't an attack on map designers, but is based on my desire for the same treatment.
-
CraterMA. I believe there is one other but I can't think of it at the moment.
Bombs are almost constantly falling on tanks in CMA when it's up. The mountains are just high enough to reduce the bombing frequency a bit and increase turnaround times, i.e. you have a few minutes more before the 'bomtard' is back with some new presents.
During prime time, there are usually several Jabos and fighter over TT at any given moment.
-
You do have to admit that the mountains are there to discourage bombing. Hence, they are designed to be free of aircraft.
I win this one, Lusche, old friend. :salute
-
You do have to admit that the mountains are there to discourage bombing. Hence, they are designed to be free of aircraft.
I win this one, Lusche, old friend. :salute
No, it's not designed to be free of aircraft, in that case the map designer would have failed miserably by not making the mountains 32k. The mountains are just a hurdle... the best analogy would be an airbase with a GV spawn to it at a greater distance than usual (so tanks have to drive longer), while making the field free of GV would be no GV spawn at all.
EDIT:
Quick test: It took me exactly 10 minutes to get a 2x1k, 100% fuel F6F from runway to tank town center. Could have been faster with less fuel and actually taking one of the passes instead of flying simply over the mountain ridge.
-
No, it's not designed to be free of aircraft, in that case the map designer would have failed miserably by not making the mountains 32k. The mountains are just a hurdle... the best analogy would be an airbase with a GV spawn to it at a greater distance than usual (so tanks have to drive longer), while making the field free of GV would be no GV spawn at all.
EDIT:
Quick test: It took me exactly 10 minutes to get a 2x1k, 100% fuel F6F from runway to tank town center. Could have been faster with less fuel and actually taking one of the passes instead of flying simply over the mountain ridge.
And why shouldn't they be ... Flaks are constantly shooting planes lifting from their bases after spawning across the map ....Tanks are constantly shooting the VH after spawning to an airbase so what?
bomb**** is a name given by GV'ers to others that play the way the GV'ers don't want/like.
Anyway this wish isn't for bombs :)
edit:
Presuming you fly home that's 20 min of doing nothing? Go try it in a ju87g2 and get back to us
:cheers:
-
Not that I wasn't arguing with you, or your wish, nor I was saying "they should not be".
Addendum: Ju 87G, 75% fuel, from runway to tank town center: 13 minutes (using one of the 10k passes).
-
Not that I wasn't arguing with you, or your wish, nor I was saying "they should not be".
Addendum: Ju 87G, 75% fuel, from runway to tank town center: 13 minutes (using one of the 10k passes).
so 26 minutes of flght picking my nose..... what if my 2.5k? base next to the 10k gap is not available and I have to go the 16k route from GL?
now up at tank at one of the vh spawns in crater, how long till your in position or at 1 of the many VH to VH tank battles or some where on the VH spawn trail!
I want to be in the instant action part, seems like a great wish to me. Matching parts in the war mixing it up both "on the ground and in the air"
Additionally: another good reason... It would also promote or increase the number of plane fights as well as you would have the hurri, yak, il2 and ju87 able to fight each other as they they often did fight in close proximity to each other. Little mini furballs ...It would be a gas :).
Instant Action,
:cheers:
-
so 26 minutes of flght picking my nose.....
13 minutes, you can land on your vbase.
Instant Action,
:cheers:
I want airspawns over the factories as well, for "instant action" in bombers. Oh, and airspawns 10k over enemy runways for "instant action" in fighters as well. And why can't I land there, have to fly all that boring way back...
-
13 minutes, you can land on your vbase.
I want airspawns over the factories as well, for "instant action" in bombers. Oh, and airspawns 10k over enemy runways for "instant action" in fighters as well. And why can't I land there, have to fly all that boring way back...
Well ... really... if you land at at a v=base you should have to drive a vehicle back but of course not you are INSTANTLY transferred back to your air base unless you want to GV of course...
I would like air plane factories to bomb, I would up my B-29's and go mow the yard, take out the trash, go to the store, have a bike ride, eat something, drink a couple beers, take a leak, sit down AHHH..... just in time to get in position for my run at the spit factory, Just like you you on the straits :aok... God knows what I would get done on the way back :eek:... I would prolly need a short nap tho... and take the dog out to play then start preparing my supper, Land... sit down and eat. Perfect day!
But alas none of this is part of my wish... My wish....Being able to up a few planes at a gv base would alot of fun.
:cheers:
-
But alas none of this is part of my wish... My wish....Being able to up a few planes at a gv base would alot of fun.
:cheers:
Ahh so you want more 2 more planes like the Storch?
HiTech
-
Ahh so you want more 2 more planes like the Storch?
HiTech
(snicker)
-
Well ... really... if you land at at a v=base you should have to drive a vehicle back but of course not you are INSTANTLY transferred back to your air base unless you want to GV of course...
Should we implement the same logic for every other case in AH? You have to ferry your aircraft from the base you land at to wherever you want to go? What if you want to go to a different front? Should you be required to fly 500 miles just to change who you're fighting?
Quit being such a little b**ch about it and just accept that your argument holds no water.
I would like air plane factories to bomb, I would up my B-29's and go mow the yard, take out the trash, go to the store, have a bike ride, eat something, drink a couple beers, take a leak, sit down AHHH..... just in time to get in position for my run at the spit factory, Just like you you on the straits :aok... God knows what I would get done on the way back :eek:... I would prolly need a short nap tho... and take the dog out to play then start preparing my supper, Land... sit down and eat. Perfect day!
The hell are you rambling on about?
But alas none of this is part of my wish... My wish....Being able to up a few planes at a gv base would alot of fun.
For the aircraft. You also fail to realize that it would pretty much invalidate the concept of a "GV" base, or a port. In effect, you've created field airstrips, and we might as well redesign the whole base concept.
Now I don't think reworking all the bases would necessarily be a bad thing. About 3 times as many GV bases (call them fire bases?) just Storch's and other recce planes enabled. Small strips, where the more rugged aircraft can be lifted from with no ordnance. Small airfields (as present).
However simply enabling GV buster aircraft will completely kill the GV game, since nobody will up GV's to defend a GV base. You'll just see a butt load of Il-2's.
-
Ahh so you want more 2 more planes like the Storch?
HiTech
(http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac6/Westland%20Lysander.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Focke_Wulf_Fw189.jpg)
:)
-
-1
To the OP, I've read this entire thing, and I cannot agree with your request. If you do not agree with me I would greatly appreciate if you would not call me names because of it.
Have some patience man. Your time flying should be fun. If you don't Want to spend the few minutes flying from the nearest airbase, then don't. There are many other things you could do, including upping a GV right there for the "instant action" you say you seek. Think of your investment in time to fly to the GV base as part of the immersion and allow it to enhance your experience.
-
How bout these?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Breguet_274.jpg/800px-Breguet_274.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Mureaux113.jpg) :D
Or the "Flying Jeep" that sounds good for a GV base and easily the most numerous of all.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:L-5futureshox.jpg)
But alas... my wish is not for those it is for for these (http://www.ace.elknet.pl/ftp/zdjecia/modele/Ju-87G-2_72/ju87g_rudel_1.jpg)
to be able to up from GV bases so it is closer to the GV's they were designed to kill.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/85dc7873-176d-4db8-b42a-373baa4f062e_zps5eb87d96.jpg)
:cheers:
-
-1 Sounds like you only want to remove your risk of getting shot down by fighters on the way to and from the GV battle.
Chugamug
-
I for one like this idea. I don't get shot down during the half hour flight time to the gv's. I get shot down, rammed as soon as I get there.
-
during the half hour flight time to the gv's.
Calibrate your throttle.
-
My throttle is calibrated Snailman just takes so long for my Stuka to get to the gv battles. Also once I do get there the first tank I kill, immediately ups a Wirble. It gets frustrating and time consuming to do the one thing I have always wanted to, which is bust tanks in the G-2.
-
My throttle is calibrated Snailman just takes so long for my Stuka to get to the gv battles.
More than 4 sectors?
-
How bout these?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Breguet_274.jpg/800px-Breguet_274.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Mureaux113.jpg) :D
Or the "Flying Jeep" that sounds good for a GV base and easily the most numerous of all.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:L-5futureshox.jpg)
But alas... my wish is not for those it is for for these (http://www.ace.elknet.pl/ftp/zdjecia/modele/Ju-87G-2_72/ju87g_rudel_1.jpg)
to be able to up from GV bases so it is closer to the GV's they were designed to kill.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/85dc7873-176d-4db8-b42a-373baa4f062e_zps5eb87d96.jpg)
:cheers:
First, a Stuka at a GV base guarantees no Tiger II will show up at its GV spawn at any point ever. No more offensive use ever.
Second, the Stuka was not designed to target GV's, it was designed to knock out hardened fortifications and targets that defied artillery barrage.
-
So the 37mms are for decoration?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-646-5184-26,_Russland,_Flugzeug_Junkers_Ju_87_edit_1.jpg)
-
So the 37mms are for decoration?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-646-5184-26,_Russland,_Flugzeug_Junkers_Ju_87_edit_1.jpg)
Show me the Ju -87B with 37mm's.
-
Show me the Ju -87B with 37mm's.
Stukas regularly bombed ground vehicles during the German blitzkrieg across Europe.
ack-ack
-
First, a Stuka at a GV base guarantees no Tiger II will show up at its GV spawn at any point ever. No more offensive use ever.
I have seen a Tiger II drive off concrete exactly twice in my Aces High career. One was me, the other was somebody I killed with a Firefly.
You GVers are the biggest group of risk adverse players in the game, and you get more special treatment then any other group in the game too.
You get a commander who can survive being strafed while sticking halfway out the turret. You get reduced icon range, magical boxes of insta-repairing supplies, Star Trek transporters to take you directly into the fight, and the ability to sit on concrete, score kills, and instantly tower out when you see a bomb/tank shell coming towards you.
I think giving players the ability to spawn IL2's/Ju87G2's from vehicle bases is perfectly reasonable considering all of that. I would go even further and say it would be reasonable to remove aircraft icons for GV's, place a fifteen second delay on the .ef command while in a vehicle, and add a thirty second timer to vehicle supplies.
-
Nah
-1
:salute
-
Stukas regularly bombed ground vehicles during the German blitzkrieg across Europe.
ack-ack
I'm aware of this. However it's not what the Stuka was DESIGNED to do.
Bombing hangers would probably be the closest thing in game to what it was actually designed for.
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Drops_zps83e3a12f.png)
-
As much as I love my Hurri IID this is not a good idea.
-
Just noticed this.
I have seen a Tiger II drive off concrete exactly twice in my Aces High career. One was me, the other was somebody I killed with a Firefly.
And I get the feeling you don't GV a whole lot. On CMA in particular, Tiger II's actually see decent usage off base, since they're the only thing that have a prayer of surviving those enemy Jadgpanthers on the other ridges.
They're usually used when odds of enemy air support are lower than usual (not at all unreasonable, given that there is 0% chance of escaping enemy air support in the highest perk, most conspicuous vehicle in the game), and the result is you flyboys all have an biased perspective on what things are like. You almost always encounter Tiger II's when you're attacking a base, but are almost never around when they are used offensively.
You GVers are the biggest group of risk adverse players in the game, and you get more special treatment then any other group in the game too.
I could name a few fighter jockeys who could far out do any GV'er for risk aversion.
You get a commander who can survive being strafed while sticking halfway out the turret.
And nobody is arguing against letting the commander be wounded by fire (provided you give us a way to button the tank up). You get reduced icon range
We get more realistic icon range. By rights, nobody shouldn't have any enemy icons at all, and you flyboys are generously granted information WELL beyond that provided by WWII IFF systems. magical boxes of insta-repairing supplies
And you can rearm and gas up your aircraft in 30 seconds. Think very carefully how far you want to take that line of complaint. Star Trek transporters to take you directly into the fight,
A necessary concession, given that it could easily take upwards of an hour to get to combat otherwise. You flyboys also have bases spaced every 30 miles or so, instead of every 300 miles.and the ability to sit on concrete, score kills, and instantly tower out when you see a bomb/tank shell coming towards you.
An unfortunate side effect of the landing system, not an intentional concession. Don't try to twist things; even GV'ers want to get rid of this. However to date, nobody has been able to come up with a satisfactory plan.
I think giving players the ability to spawn IL2's/Ju87G2's from vehicle bases is perfectly reasonable considering all of that.
You would be unintelligent, in that case.
I would go even further and say it would be reasonable to remove aircraft icons for GV's
Only if aircraft get no GV icons, and friendly aircraft are still displayed for wirblwinds and AA vehicles.
place a fifteen second delay on the .ef command while in a vehicle
Do the same for aircraft
add a thirty second timer to vehicle supplies.
You can also land from your rearm pad, we can't land just anywhere if we need supplies.
-
I'm aware of this. However it's not what the Stuka was DESIGNED to do.
Bombing hangers would probably be the closest thing in game to what it was actually designed for.
It was designed to attack ground targets, regardless if it was a bunker, a building, a ship, a tank, a truck or people. The Stuka (when it was combat field tested) was used to attack ground vehicles during the Spanish Civil War, amongst other targets. When used in the flying artillery role (as it was during the Blitzkrieg), it often bombed and strafed ground vehicles, both military and civilian.
ack-ack
-
We get more realistic icon range. By rights, nobody shouldn't have any enemy icons at all, and you flyboys are generously granted information WELL beyond that provided by WWII IFF systems.
No, you get special treatment because you cry more then anybody else. I would be fine with no icons personally.
And you can rearm and gas up your aircraft in 30 seconds. Think very carefully how far you want to take that line of complaint.
Yes, I can fly all the way back to my airfield and gas up/rearm in 30 seconds. I can't repair ANY damage, much less crash-land in a field and have a vehicle drive up and instantly bring my plane back to life. It's absurd that somebody can knock out your turret/tracks/engine and you are able to instantly repair the damage and continue fighting as though those hits never happened. A delay on repair time is pretty reasonable, but you won't admit that because it would mean you couldn't abuse the mechanic anymore.
Don't try to twist things; even GV'ers want to get rid of this. However to date, nobody has been able to come up with a satisfactory plan.
Fifteen second delay seems perfectly reasonable to me. For aircraft it seems a bit silly since I can't sit on the tarmac and fight, score kills, and abuse a mechanic in my perk tank to avoid any risk of death.
-
No, you get special treatment because you cry more then anybody else. I would be fine with no icons personally.
Special treatment? :rolleyes: What kind, how so? Maybe just different treatment, because it's an entirely different aspect. You are in the loud minority that GVrs are too this too that and waaaaah they get supplies. Suck it up Nancy, without them the LWMA would have 30peeps at times and all the Bish sitting in the tower figuring out how they can horde with only 13players. That what you want?
:neener:
-
Maybe vehicles should have to pull into a hangar to tower. :salute
-
No, you get special treatment because you cry more then anybody else. I would be fine with no icons personally.
As RotBaron noted, its different, not special.
The only similar aspect that tank combat shares with air combat is that you want to shoot your opponent. If you treat two completely different things as the same, obviously it won't work for one of them.
Yes, I can fly all the way back to my airfield and gas up/rearm in 30 seconds. I can't repair ANY damage, much less crash-land in a field and have a vehicle drive up and instantly bring my plane back to life. It's absurd that somebody can knock out your turret/tracks/engine and you are able to instantly repair the damage and continue fighting as though those hits never happened. A delay on repair time is pretty reasonable, but you won't admit that because it would mean you couldn't abuse the mechanic anymore.
You also can't be immobilized in the air, hanging there helpless until someone brings you supplies either. You also can't be shot from in excess of 4000yds either.
When you rearm, you also have that nice curtain of field ack to help keep your whiney little arse safe. It forces people to think twice out to 6.5k, while GV's have nothing of the sort. You're also guaranteed to be back at your base, when 50% of the time for a GV, they've spawned in and returning to base is so impractical as to be impossible.
You also seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that an engine or track hit is damn near a death sentence already, unless there happens to be supplies already within range. Now you're saying I should wait for supplies to drive up, wait another 30 seconds for it to be fixed while under shell fire?
Fifteen second delay seems perfectly reasonable to me. For aircraft it seems a bit silly since I can't sit on the tarmac and fight, score kills, and abuse a mechanic in my perk tank to avoid any risk of death.
Then once again, you prove your low IQ. You're sitting nice and safe at your field, likely 15 miles from an enemy, outside of gunnery range of most enemies, and protected from any within close proximity by your field ack.
You also have no need to defend yourself, while we do. The fact that you cannot recognize this is simply astounding to me. It also makes me wonder how you managed to learn ACM, when you think the game should conform to your own unreasonable wishes.
-
Maybe vehicles should have to pull into a hangar to tower. :salute
Why? Its no different than aircraft landing on the runway, and then disappearing. They should be in the hanger to have even a modicum of safety, yet they disappear the instant they stop moving.
-
Why? Its no different than aircraft landing on the runway, and then disappearing. They should be in the hanger to have even a modicum of safety, yet they disappear the instant they stop moving.
Why? Because aircraft aren't the ones grossly abusing a game mechanic in order to fight without risk.
Come back and talk again when that has changed.
-
Why? Because aircraft aren't the ones grossly abusing a game mechanic in order to fight without risk.
Come back and talk again when that has changed.
Okay, valid point. Still, I don't think this should be the only change if we're going to change the landing requirments.
3k is plenty enough separation from aircraft for a landing. Considering it will take a Panzer about 10 minutes to cover 5k, assuming they go in a strait line, and don't have to climb any hills, dodge trees, and assuming the aircraft don't come closer.
Would also increase use of perk GV's offensively.
-
Good old Jager simply wants to continue abusing the broken mechanics because it benefits him. It would break his little heart if he logged on one day and found that his Tiger II wasn't 100% invulnerable while sitting on concrete, it would also break his little tanker heart if he couldn't have somebody spread supplies out around him so he could take multiple crippling hits and keep on fighting like nothing happened.
-
I agree that GVs need a better system for landing so that they can be used offensively without the safe assumption that it is a one way trip.
-
I agree that GVs need a better system for landing so that they can be used offensively without the safe assumption that it is a one way trip.
Fifteen second delay to .ef for GV's seems perfectly reasonable to me.
-
I agree that GVs need a better system for landing so that they can be used offensively without the safe assumption that it is a one way trip.
Let me know if you come up with one.
HiTech
-
Let me know if you come up with one.
HiTech
Oh oh oh!!! *sticks hand in air*
3k is plenty enough separation from aircraft for a landing.
-
Roads.....
Armour moved by road and rail and was deployed from road and rail into theatre..... Indeed it's still much the same now.
Gv's should be able to deploy from roads and return to roads. Maybe there should be a time delay during de spawning ( for everything) equally there should be a choice as to where on the road a gv can spawn.
This is a major change to the spawning system but would IMO also bring substantial benefits. It basically replaces the lower left keypad with a road map on the main clipboard page depicting the local road network where by players can spawn by clicking on the pertinent bit of road. ( equally runways could be also depicted graphically)
When armour moved away from roads it also moved away from its best logistic supply and indeed it's best method of egress from theatre. With more active roads in AH armour can return to roads to des pawn.
We may still see TigerII's still hugging roads but at least they might be deployed.
Roads could also be used to reduce the effectiveness of spawn camping. The road becomes a 5-10 mile line of spawn where a player may choose where on that road to spawn..... Not so easy to camp as an area little bigger than a few fields.
-
Roads.....
Armour moved by road and rail and was deployed from road and rail into theatre..... Indeed it's still much the same now.
Gv's should be able to deploy from roads and return to roads. Maybe there should be a time delay during de spawning ( for everything) equally there should be a choice as to where on the road a gv can spawn.
This is a major change to the spawning system but would IMO also bring substantial benefits. It basically replaces the lower left keypad with a road map on the main clipboard page depicting the local road network where by players can spawn by clicking on the pertinent bit of road. ( equally runways could be also depicted graphically)
When armour moved away from roads it also moved away from its best logistic supply and indeed it's best method of egress from theatre. With more active roads in AH armour can return to roads to des pawn.
We may still see TigerII's still hugging roads but at least they might be deployed.
Roads could also be used to reduce the effectiveness of spawn camping. The road becomes a 5-10 mile line of spawn where a player may choose where on that road to spawn..... Not so easy to camp as an area little bigger than a few fields.
You could have said this years ago. Excellent idea Tilt. :salute
-
Roads.....
Armour moved by road and rail and was deployed from road and rail into theatre..... Indeed it's still much the same now.
Gv's should be able to deploy from roads and return to roads. Maybe there should be a time delay during de spawning ( for everything) equally there should be a choice as to where on the road a gv can spawn.
This is a major change to the spawning system but would IMO also bring substantial benefits. It basically replaces the lower left keypad with a road map on the main clipboard page depicting the local road network where by players can spawn by clicking on the pertinent bit of road. ( equally runways could be also depicted graphically)
When armour moved away from roads it also moved away from its best logistic supply and indeed it's best method of egress from theatre. With more active roads in AH armour can return to roads to des pawn.
We may still see TigerII's still hugging roads but at least they might be deployed.
Roads could also be used to reduce the effectiveness of spawn camping. The road becomes a 5-10 mile line of spawn where a player may choose where on that road to spawn..... Not so easy to camp as an area little bigger than a few fields.
I agree with bustr, that is a great idea. Deserves it's own thread :)
-
spawn road instead of spawn point :aok
-
spawn road instead of spawn point :aok
I think it would be cool (going along with Tilt's idea) that you would be able to 'see' a picture of the spawn point (like right now you can call up a map of a small medium or large airfield), and determine where on that road you want to spawn. Hopefully the spawn isn't predictable, but not vastly different. Vastly different being spawning 8k from the enemy field while your friend spawns 5k from the enemy field and I spawn 12k from the enemy field. *shrug*
But I do like the idea, and I Hope HTC considers it. At least roads will be used more :)
-
Sounds like the majority of people are overwhelmingly against this :rock :rock :rock -111111. -Stodd
-
Sounds like the majority of people are overwhelmingly against this :rock :rock :rock -111111. -Stodd
I don't think so... when I talk about it in the game most of the pilot types in Aces High seam to like the idea ...of course the GV'ers start squealing :aok
I don't care who squeals and who don't, but having part of the player base able to get away from another is BS when it is not a reciprocal.....
My favorite thing to do of late is shoot GV's with a Ju87G2..... I find my self spending more time in the tower just looking for an opportunity, but the way most maps are... it just dosn't happen. But I could just up at a GV base...die, rinse, repeat just like you gv guys :aok
It would be nice to up a plane that was designed for shooting vehicles some where near the vehicles.... instead of the long flights which usually result in a quick death...by some Johnson using the neat dot system back channel crap or the I cant fight the planes let me dive through 10 and get the JU87 :rolleyes:....Can you imagine how you GV guys would squeal without your spawns? Have to drive 15 mins each time you got shot....
Allow GV killer's to up at GV bases,
:cheers:
-
Going back to the OP.
I would not encourage the use of aircraft from gv fields other than such aircraft that were not limited to deployment from airfields. To my mind this is the Storch or a bird such as the Po.
I do have sympathy with the limited access gv attack aircraft have to interdict with gv battles. It seems that game play causes the Stuka/Stormavic/Hurri2d to only be used defensively where as they should be able to be used in support of gv attacks.
From this perspective I look at many maps and see that air fields are placed remote from gv fields such that it is simply too much trouble to fly such aircraft so far for so short a period of gv attack play that it is not enough fun.
Of course re making the maps would help in this respect, but would also encourage the miss use of heavy bombers in this respect.
Whilst other solutions to such miss use of heavy bombers could be curbed in other ways I guess I would support the use of limited ac supplies in theatre. When I say limited I guess I would limit it to fuel and cannon shells possibly rockets but not bombs and certainly no repair function. In this way even with our present maps the aircraft under consideration could be re armed ( but not re bombed) in theatre increasing endurance possibilities and making the journey more worth while.
While close to the subject....... Give the IL2 the PTAB!
-
Roads.....
Armour moved by road and rail and was deployed from road and rail into theatre..... Indeed it's still much the same now.
Gv's should be able to deploy from roads and return to roads. Maybe there should be a time delay during de spawning ( for everything) equally there should be a choice as to where on the road a gv can spawn.
This is a major change to the spawning system but would IMO also bring substantial benefits. It basically replaces the lower left keypad with a road map on the main clipboard page depicting the local road network where by players can spawn by clicking on the pertinent bit of road. ( equally runways could be also depicted graphically)
When armour moved away from roads it also moved away from its best logistic supply and indeed it's best method of egress from theatre. With more active roads in AH armour can return to roads to des pawn.
We may still see TigerII's still hugging roads but at least they might be deployed.
Roads could also be used to reduce the effectiveness of spawn camping. The road becomes a 5-10 mile line of spawn where a player may choose where on that road to spawn..... Not so easy to camp as an area little bigger than a few fields.
great idea
-
Let me know if you come up with one.
HiTech
How about having a small small concrete patch (like 25'x25') at each spawn point specifically for de-spawning?
Vehicles would never spawn ONTO it (still randomly around the spawn point). But if you can make it safely back to the concrete patch, you can despawn there safely regardless of who is in range.
It would also give you some hope of successfully spawning out of a spawn camp (though clearly the despawn pad would be a primary target).
This is sort of like the "roads" idea, but possibly with less design and coding required. It too would work nicely in conjunction with a 10-second despawn timer, to deter concrete-sitters.
<S>
Ryno
-
Going back to the OP.
I do have sympathy with the limited access gv attack aircraft have to interdict with gv battles. It seems that game play causes the Stuka/Stormavic/Hurri2d to only be used defensively where as they should be able to be used in support of gv attacks.
From this perspective I look at many maps and see that air fields are placed remote from gv fields such that it is simply too much trouble to fly such aircraft so far for so short a period of gv attack play that it is not enough fun.
Exactly!
Of course re making the maps would help in this respect, but would also encourage the miss use of heavy bombers in this respect.
Whilst other solutions to such miss use of heavy bombers could be curbed in other ways I guess I would support the use of limited ac supplies in theatre. When I say limited I guess I would limit it to fuel and cannon shells possibly rockets but not bombs and certainly no repair function. In this way even with our present maps the aircraft under consideration could be re armed ( but not re bombed) in theatre increasing endurance possibilities and making the journey more worth while.
We dont have to remake anything just add 3-4 planes to the GV bases and a hot pad.
1. Only allow the aircraft that spawn at the GV base to use the rearm pad... nothing else. No sitting on the rearm pad for the GV that can get supply's.
2. Only allow the Stuka D-3 to up with/carry bombs from a V-Base and only say up to 500kg?
3. No repairs at the rearm pad just like an air base.
While close to the subject....... Give the IL2 the PTAB!
Yes!
:salute
-
So last night I'm playing at FT in my P40N. I drop a bomb on this guy and he immediately says U POS bomb****. I laughed and said "If I could up a G2 at 2 I wouldn't have to bomb ya I could just shoot ya instead"!
What difference does it make how the gv'er goes down.
Bombing Tards,
:cheers:
-
You GVers are the biggest group of risk adverse players in the game, and you get more special treatment then any other group in the game too.
You get a commander who can survive being strafed while sticking halfway out the turret. You get reduced icon range, magical boxes of insta-repairing supplies, Star Trek transporters to take you directly into the fight, and the ability to sit on concrete, score kills, and instantly tower out when you see a bomb/tank shell coming towards you.
That was pretty funny! :lol
-
+1 on Il2 and Hurry 2D and Ju 87g2 to be enabled at hangars. When i am in a wirlble at a tank battle I miss all those low flying aircraft.. Also I think it will limit the amount of bomb****s. They will up these attack planes which are easier to kill. Also these attack planes have a harder time killing you with there guns. I think it would be fair. :banana:
-
This entire thread seems to be inspired by people jealous of the fact that tanks can land on concrete instead of giving them an instant kill. I say it doesn't matter if you get a kill or not. Why do you need just one more kill? Drop the hangars, force the guy to tower by dropping a bomb on him and capture his field.
The names in this thread are classic envy types wanting the other guy to get fewer kills while they get more. That's what I see. It's the same old excuse to change the game to favor your style, and it's not hard to get kills on the tanks in the field so why are you crying? Because you want to get a high-five for taking some guys perks from him?
Let's put a fifteen second delay on towering all perk rides! How about those 262s? Force them to taxi to the hangar even. Great idea!
The roads idea will not work either. The spawn points have a spread to them for when tanks are camping nearby. Did you forget? Roads would break that.
Want something to kill Tiger IIs? You got the Tiger II. You complain that the Tiger II will not come off concrete. Well, come off concrete and go kill him. Problem solved.
-
+1 on Il2 and Hurry 2D and Ju 87g2 to be enabled at hangars. When i am in a wirlble at a tank battle I miss all those low flying aircraft.. Also I think it will limit the amount of bomb****s. They will up these attack planes which are easier to kill. Also these attack planes have a harder time killing you with there guns. I think it would be fair. :banana:
:aok
and your right. I get 3 500lbs in my P40 then strafe a few more or climb up and fight get a few more... I can get around 2-4 kills in my G2 <if I don't hit a tree> on a good flight, then I have to rtb.... either way it's what I and others like to do.
I think Fair includes some way to deal with the 600yrd icon wirb and osti the Yak9"T" anti Tank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCCtc0gT3L8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCCtc0gT3L8)
or the 45mm version 9K
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DotYG_e0Iqw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DotYG_e0Iqw)
:cheers:
-
When i am in a wirlble at a tank battle I miss all those low flying aircraft.
This is a very good point. :aok
It is pretty difficult to hit attackers who dive down from 2500 yards at high speed to drop their bombs on some gv, especially if the tank is not near you.
-
My wish is for the Tank busting planes to be allowed to take off from GV bases. Tank busters are part of the GV's game. I don't think its fair that GV's can run off to the corner of the map, or the center in this case, and get away from the planes and have their own little war. I don't care for the fact that GVer's don't have to join the game or have their own game inside the game where if they like can just go spawn and sit blasting away with no care about the planes. We have GV's on the air base we should have tank related planes at GV bases. There is already a hanger just need the re-arm pad.
Ju87G2
Yak-9T
Hurri IID
Ju87D-3
Il2
I like to shoot tanks I can't do that on allot of the maps or most of the time when I log in.... especially on Greebos Sanctuary map for GV's. Make it so we can shoot tanks anytime we like.
Put the air game back in the ground game,
:cheers:
[/quote-----your :banana:'s
-
Yes it was, he said "Fire".
Yes it was, he looked threw the gun sight and moved the turret.
HiTech
Rudel says getting hit by a tank would be an accident or mistake made by the pilot......meaning if it happened at all it wasn't the sharp shooting tank who gets the credit.
"More dangerous for our tanks is the Soviet heavy and very heavy anti-tank artillery which appears at every key point of
the battle area. As the Russians are masters of camouflage their Pak is only spotted and neutralized with difficult y.
The sight of these masses of tanks reminds me of my cannon-carrying aircraft of the experimental unit, which I have
brought with me from the Crimea. With this enormous target of enemy tanks it should be possible to try it out. It is true
the flak defenses covering the Soviet tank units are very heavy, but I say to myself that both groups are facing each other
at a distance of 1200 to 1800 yards, and unless I am brought down like a stone by a direct hit by flak it must always be
possible to crash-land the damaged aircraft in our own tank lines. The first flight therefore flies with bombs behind me in
the only cannon-carrying aeroplane. So the attempt is made.
In the first attack four tanks explode under the hammer blows of my cannons; by the evening the total rises to twelve. We
are all seized with a kind of passion for the chase from the glorious feeling of having saved much German bloodshed with
every tank destroyed.
After the first day the fitters have their hands full, for the aircraft have been heavily damaged by flak. The life of such an
aeroplane will always be limited. But the main thing is: the evil spell is broken, and in this aircraft we possess a weapon
which can speedily be employed everywhere and is capable of dealing successfully with the formidable numbers of Soviet
tanks. There is great rejoicing in the flight, the squadron, the wing and the group over this newly-gained discovery and its
practical confirmation. In order to secure supplies of this aircraft a signal is immediately sent to all sections of the antitank
experimental unit, asking for all serviceable aircraft to be flown here at once with crews. So the anti-tank flight is
formed. For operational purposes it is under my command.
The succeeding days and battles complete the picture and further successes are not denied us. While the cannon-carrying
aircraft go in to attack, a part of the bomber formation deals with the ground defenses; the rest circle at a fairly low level
like a broody hen round her chickens in order to protect the anti-tank aircraft from interception by enemy fighters.
Little by little I discover all the tricks. Skill is often the result of getting hurt. We lose aircraft in weakly defended areas
because we are cruising in the middle of an artillery duel. The air space in the line of the artillery trajectory must be
avoided, otherwise there is the danger of being shot down "by accident."
After some time the Soviets have managed fairly successfully to cope with our air attacks against their tanks. If it is at all
possible they move up their A.A. guns with the leading tanks. The tanks also are equipped with smoke shells to create a
fog screen or to intimidate a conflagration in the hope that their pursuers may veer off in the belief that they have achieved
their purpose. Experienced crews soon get wise to this maneuver and are no longer deceived by it. A tank which is really
on fire will show very bright flames, and to simulate such flames is far too risky a business. In many cases the tank will
blow up as the fire catches the ammunition normally always carried in every tank. It is very uncomfortable for us if the
explosion is instantaneous and our aircraft is flying at an altitude of 15-30 feet above the tank. This happens to me twice
in the first few days when I suddenly fly through a curtain of fire and think: "This time you are for it."
I come out, however, safe and sound on the other side even though the green camouflage of my aircraft is scorched and
splinters from the exploding tank have riddled it with holes.
Sometimes we dive onto the steel monsters from behind, sometimes from the side. The angle of attack is not too steep to
prevent us flying in quite close to the ground, and so also when pulling out from getting into any trouble in case the
aircraft overshoots. If it overshoots too far it is hardly possible to avoid contact with the ground with all its dangerous
consequences."
Rudel -"Stuka Pilot"
:cheers:
-
Rudel says getting hit by a tank would be an accident or mistake made by the pilot......meaning if it happened at all it wasn't the sharp shooting tank who gets the credit.
....and when did he write coad for Aces High?
-
....and when did he write coad for Aces High?
.....last time you wrote a funny joke?
-
Rudel says getting hit by a tank would be an accident or mistake made by the pilot......meaning if it happened at all it wasn't the sharp shooting tank who gets the credit.
If you noticed in this thread, we've been trying to tell you that. In AH, if you get shot down by a tank's main gun, you (the pilot), made a mistake by flying straight at the tank so the main gun could be brought to bear on you. I'm glad to see that Rudel had the same thought.
ack-ack
-
If you noticed in this thread, we've been trying to tell you that. In AH, if you get shot down by a tank's main gun, you (the pilot), made a mistake by flying straight at the tank so the main gun could be brought to bear on you. I'm glad to see that Rudel had the same thought.
ack-ack
I think it points out just the opposite Ack
He says that he could be hit bye the shell while crossing thru tanks shooting at each other.. hence the accident was flying thru the fire not at the fire.... and certainly not tanks shooting at him.......... you don't read to well.
Edit:Ya Know Ack.... There are many things in my post that go to the merit of this thread. I'll point out, when hit by a flak he didn't drop like a rock and was able to land/crash-land somewhere close to his line..... why? ... because he was close to begin with.
He made at least what 3-4 flights a day maybe more? he was able to do that because he was so far from the action?
I think it also points out that the tanks weren't worried about the planes while enemy tanks were on the battle field. They had ack that was dealt with by the bomb carrying stuka's :aok
Lets not try to capitalize on your 1 event miracle... that may or may not be true. :lol
-
He says that he could be hit bye the shell while crossing thru tanks shooting at each other.... not tanks shooting at him.......... you don't read to well.
But the fact remains the shells fly through the air on their trajectory, and if the airplane happens to intersect that flight path it will be struck. The tankers' lives depended on their limited ammunition, so taking a low percentage anti-aircraft shot was folly. In here there's nothing at stake, why not take the low percentage shot? Why should aircraft be magically exempt from something shooting at them?
Wiley.
-
But the fact remains the shells fly through the air on their trajectory, and if the airplane happens to intersect that flight path it will be struck. The tankers' lives depended on their limited ammunition, so taking a low percentage anti-aircraft shot was folly. In here there's nothing at stake, why not take the low percentage shot? Why should aircraft be magically exempt from something shooting at them?
Wiley.
why because they weren't looking for planes in there tanks that's why
-
why because they weren't looking for planes in there tanks that's why
Whats, specifically, is your proposed mechanism to prevent aircraft with handsomehunk attack profiles from being shot down, that won't sacrifice any realism?
-
why because they weren't looking for planes in there tanks that's why
So what? Why should we introduce magic invulnerability into the game?
Wiley.
-
But the fact remains the shells fly through the air on their trajectory, and if the airplane happens to intersect that flight path it will be struck. The tankers' lives depended on their limited ammunition, so taking a low percentage anti-aircraft shot was folly. In here there's nothing at stake, why not take the low percentage shot? Why should aircraft be magically exempt from something shooting at them?
Wiley.
The whole shooting at planes with the main gun was introduced with the "world of tanks" style of control - that is aiming from the commander position with a HUD and an effective zoom. If the player had to located the plane using the gunner optics it would have been much more difficult to bring the main gun to bear. That's how it used to be before the gun was slaved to the commander HUD. While HTC are very meticulous with the plane modeling and proud of the level of physics, the tank modeling became more arcade than a sim.
-
The whole shooting at planes with the main gun was introduced with the "world of tanks" style of control
BS. I used to main gun planes with the t34's long before the wasd controls. they were all impatient fools flying 50-100 ft agl right down my bore.
as pointed out many times, if you're going to fly directly down the bore, you're going to get shot.. it's not unreasonable, just like you'd also expect a tank driving directly at you to get shot.
-
I think it points out just the opposite Ack
He says that he could be hit bye the shell while crossing thru tanks shooting at each other.. hence the accident was flying thru the fire not at the fire.... and certainly not tanks shooting at him.......... you don't read to well.
He said getting hit by a tank was either an accident (i.e. inadvertently flying into a tank shell) or a mistake made by the pilot, which could mean that the pilot made the mistake of flying in an area where he could be hit by a tank shell or attacking at an angle that made him vulnerable to be being shot down by tanks main gun.
Edit:Ya Know Ack.... There are many things in my post that go to the merit of this thread. I'll point out, when hit by a flak he didn't drop like a rock and was able to land/crash-land somewhere close to his line..... why? ... because he was close to begin with.
He made at least what 3-4 flights a day maybe more? he was able to do that because he was so far from the action?
The reason why Rudel was close to the action was because a large number of Luftwaffe bases were within minutes of flying time from the front line. If the bases were farther back, his flight time to the action would have been longer. It wasn't because he was stationed with the tank units and took off from tank depots.
Why not make a map or ask someone to make a map with the vehicle bases and spawns closer to the airfields so you can have the short flight times to the action?
I think it also points out that the tanks weren't worried about the planes while enemy tanks were on the battle field. They had ack that was dealt with by the bomb carrying stuka's :aok
That in no way proves your point that tanks never fired at attacking aircraft. Your desire to have the ability for it to happen in game removed is not based on anything historical but rather an attempt on your part to get something nerfed so you won't be shot down while you're in your Stuka. It's time to be honest, you know it's the reason, and we all know it's the reason.
ack-ack
-
While HTC are very meticulous with the plane modeling and proud of the level of physics, the tank modeling became more arcade than a sim.
You may wish to reconsider this thought process, when it comes to ballistics, sights, turret traverse rates, method of track control, armor penetration, armor thickness,angle of impact calculations, you will find lots of very detail simulation, on par and in some respects more detailed the planes.
But just like bombers, tanks have a crew. And some method must be made to allow a single user , some of the same SA that a crew has.
HiTech
-
You may wish to reconsider this thought process, when it comes to ballistics, sights, turret traverse rates, method of track control, armor penetration, armor thickness,angle of impact calculations, you will find lots of very detail simulation, on par and in some respects more detailed the planes.
But just like bombers, tanks have a crew. And some method must be made to allow a single user , some of the same SA that a crew has.
HiTech
Which is why bombers have F3, F4 and F5 modes to simulate having a crew looking outside the bomber.
-
You may wish to reconsider this thought process, when it comes to ballistics, sights, turret traverse rates, method of track control, armor penetration, armor thickness,angle of impact calculations, you will find lots of very detail simulation, on par and in some respects more detailed the planes.
But just like bombers, tanks have a crew. And some method must be made to allow a single user , some of the same SA that a crew has.
HiTech
That explains why a tank guy says he hits another tank he thinks is a one hit tank but nothing happens. Angle impacts calculation is something that I would never guessed is included in the tank damage calculation. Much more sophisticated than I thought.
-
That explains why a tank guy says he hits another tank he thinks is a one hit tank but nothing happens. Angle impacts calculation is something that I would never guessed is included in the tank damage calculation. Much more sophisticated than I thought.
Of course angle of impact calculations are taken into account. That's why sloped armor works in the game, and glancing hits deflect rather than penetrate.
Unless you've never really done much tanking, it should be fairly evident.
-
Unless you've never really done much tanking, it should be fairly evident.
Play nice, no need to get snippy.
That is interesting on the armor though, it sort of explains why a panzer took 22 rounds from my m4 before he died... although I still don't really know why :lol
Will have to find the film sometime and send it in (need to go through my library of films :uhoh )
-
Not trying to be snippy. Just saying that if you're paying attention, its fairly evident that angle of impact is factored into GV combat.
-
He said getting hit by a tank was either an accident (i.e. inadvertently flying into a tank shell) or a mistake made by the pilot, which could mean that the pilot made the mistake of flying in an area where he could be hit by a tank shell or attacking at an angle that made him vulnerable to be being shot down by tanks main gun.
The reason why Rudel was close to the action was because a large number of Luftwaffe bases were within minutes of flying time from the front line. If the bases were farther back, his flight time to the action would have been longer. It wasn't because he was stationed with the tank units and took off from tank depots.
Why not make a map or ask someone to make a map with the vehicle bases and spawns closer to the airfields so you can have the short flight times to the action?
That in no way proves your point that tanks never fired at attacking aircraft. Your desire to have the ability for it to happen in game removed is not based on anything historical but rather an attempt on your part to get something nerfed so you won't be shot down while you're in your Stuka. It's time to be honest, you know it's the reason, and we all know it's the reason.
ack-ack
I have quoted him directly read it again :aok
Oh and becuase he was close to the action makes my point for Planes at GV bases :) thanx
-
I have quoted him directly read it again :aok
Oh and becuase he was close to the action makes my point for Planes at GV bases :) thanx
It actually doesn't.
-
Oh and becuase he was close to the action makes my point for Planes at GV bases :) thanx
He wasn't close to the action because he was taking off from tank depots, he was close to the action because his airfield was close to the front lines.
ack-ack
-
It actually doesn't.
you have the book?
-
He wasn't close to the action because he was taking off from tank depots, he was close to the action because his airfield was close to the front lines.
ack-ack
Sorry about your comprehension problem....
-
you have the book?
Can you not read what you both quoted AKAK saying, and what he just said in the post above you?
Besides, you're already minutes from a GV base. 5-10 minutes maybe, but minutes are still the best unit to measure that amount of time. Minutes does not imply 2-3 minutes.
-
Can you not read what you both quoted AKAK saying, and what he just said in the post above you?
Besides, you're already minutes from a GV base. 5-10 minutes maybe, but minutes are still the best unit to measure that amount of time. Minutes does not imply 2-3 minutes.
Do you have the Book? "Stuka Pilot"
-
Sorry about your comprehension problem....
You're saying that he was stationed on the front lines with the tank units and didn't take off from an airfield?
ack-ack
-
You're saying that he was stationed on the front lines with the tank units and didn't take off from an airfield?
ack-ack
He did and he also would stay at a farm or empty fields for the night and commandeer the house. One place they moved to they started cutting down trees for shelter. The weren't always at an airfield... yeaH that is what I'm saying.
-
.....last time you wrote a funny joke?
It wasn't a joke. The point is that we play a GAME. While it may LOOK like WWII it isn't and bringing in information/facts about WWII is just plain stupid. WWII facts have very little to do with the game. Many things we do in the game wouldn't have been done with the regularity we do them do to a certain "death factor" or limitations of supplies and so on. We can fire thousands and thousands of rounds at aircraft and become very good at hitting them where as during the war tanks didn't do it so much because they couldn't waste the ammo, give away their positions and such.
In the game there are no consequences for failure other than a bad looking score sheet. In real life it could cost you your life as well as many of the life's of those around you.
-
I don't care your jokes arn't funny and the answer would be never :aok
What does your ramble have to do with my wish? anything?
Nope,
-
It wasn't a joke. The point is that we play a GAME. While it may LOOK like WWII it isn't and bringing in information/facts about WWII is just plain stupid. WWII facts have very little to do with the game.
Actually WWII facts have an awful lot to do with this game....... And whilst gameplay is far removed from the real life circumstances of a WWII pilot. It does best to create a frame work of game play taking into account many of the very parameters which influenced a WWII. ( not in the least the characteristics of the hardware in use).
Whilst the presiding factor in any game play modelling choice should be "is it fun" the secondary factor in my opinion should be its "place" in this WWII air/land combat game.
In summary it's far from "stupid" to refer to WWII facts, the test (IMO) when invoking them is how they may be used to make game play more fun.
-
Actually WWII facts have an awful lot to do with this game....... And whilst gameplay is far removed from the real life circumstances of a WWII pilot. It does best to create a frame work of game play taking into account many of the very parameters which influenced a WWII. ( not in the least the characteristics of the hardware in use).
Whilst the presiding factor in any game play modelling choice should be "is it fun" the secondary factor in my opinion should be its "place" in this WWII air/land combat game.
In summary it's far from "stupid" to refer to WWII facts, the test (IMO) when invoking them is how they may be used to make game play more fun.
Also I can see how many who wish on these forums want to add more realism because they see the game has 'realistic' parts to it. However, those who actually fly or have knowledge of the subject know that some of the not-so-fun parts are left out. That is one of the reasons why I think we get so many wishes for more realism in some areas, because HTC has taken the time to make sure that the game has realistic qualities in areas, yet is still fun for everyone.
I agree that the facts have a major impact on the game, but I do agree it's a game. That is a different realm entirely.. the realm of.. perspective.
:salute
-
That in no way proves your point that tanks never fired at attacking aircraft. Your desire to have the ability for it to happen in game removed is not based on anything historical but rather an attempt on your part to get something nerfed so you won't be shot down while you're in your Stuka. It's time to be honest, you know it's the reason, and we all know it's the reason.
ack-ack
your right here's some honesty for you granted it's a 129 :aok and this is the last I will comment on this subject as it is not part of my wish :)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/c0985d9d-577a-451d-8302-9a1f10635efd_zps7060e95f.png)
Kinda hard to do when your outside the tank :lol the reason to get it nerfed is it didn't happen :) it's a fake part of the game with what amounts to zero proof that it ever happened. When the rest of the game is based on real life facts. Now certainly 51's didn't fight 51's... but planes fought planes and bombed tanks, tanks fought tanks, tanks didn't fight airplanes with there main gun. So just quit it stop making stuff up. ;)
Ack stop trying to change the subject to fit you view of how you think I think..... you are starting to sound like Karnak you really arn't very good at it :aok ...If it did happen at all it wasn't documented or you have failed to provide any real proof what so ever.
:cheers:
-
Actually WWII facts have an awful lot to do with this game.......
In summary it's far from "stupid" to refer to WWII facts, the test (IMO) when invoking them is how they may be used to make game play more fun.
My wish will just add more diversity to the game.
It will also allow those 3-4 planes that see little use, until a few gv's show up at an airport, more of an opportunity to participate in game play.... a part of the game they were intended for.
Thanx,
:salute
-
tanks didn't fight airplanes with there main gun.
should a tank be allowed to shoot a plane sitting on the runway with their main gun?
rolling on the runway?
one foot off the runway?
20 feet off the runway?
500 feet?
etc.
-
should a tank be allowed to shoot a plane sitting on the runway with their main gun?
rolling on the runway?
one foot off the runway?
20 feet off the runway?
500 feet?
etc.
:lol @ your avatar
Even though I have been victim to many tank main-gun deaths in my planes over the years. I can't blame anyone else for that except myself. It was because of the way I flew, that I died. If I fly in their main-guns "line of sight", and die, then that is my fault.
So it isn't right nor fair to the tanks for you to punish them, because you as the pilot can't fly in a correct manner.
-
I knew this thread had Legs.
Ray Charles could see it.
-
Currently on Ozkansas the only part of the map that is blinking are the two GV islands ........ nothing else!
Let Me up my plane at a GV base. :furious
-
Currently on Ozkansas the only part of the map that is blinking are the two GV islands ........ nothing else!
Let Me up my plane at a GV base. :furious
They are 5 min. flight time away.
-
They are 5 min. flight time away.
Not in a Ju87G2 its not
Pay attention,
-
Currently on Ozkansas the only part of the map that is blinking are the two GV islands ........ nothing else!
Let Me up my plane at a GV base. :furious
The relative poor accessibility to these bases by ac is a function of terrain design....... This is what should be changed IMO.
-
The relative poor accessibility to these bases by ac is a function of terrain design....... This is what should be changed IMO.
Its not just that map it's most... like the 1 we have now for what 4 days and counting.
Whatever it takes to get them closer to where they are supposed to be. :aok
10-15 min flight 30sec death don't work.
There should be away to place these specialized aircraft at or very near GV bases as well as defending Air bases.
Flying out to the spawn in either case, Air field or GV base, is about as far as you want to fly them for this purpose.
I actually enjoy working with some of the mainstay Rook GV'ers........
:cheers:
-
Maybe we could get a new category called "Defend" you really have to fly to far to "Attack" in these planes. At present the Ju87G2 and friends are only used to Defend bases. So.... along with the Attack choice <which it really doesn't do> add a Defend box next to the Attack box on the clipboard. We could use the <I know, another great idea just leaped from the contents of this thread> defend points for super spawn powers like the GV's? :lol And Poof!........ My AGV (AirGroundVehicle) spawns across the map.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Attack_zpsa0d1df50.png)
Seriously.... If I were able to fly from a GV base to GV base I may attack as they are usually are close to each other and in a lot of cases have there own GV Habitrail spawns that have nothing to do with the air war....... but it just takes to long to fly from an Air base to a Gv base for almost certain death. I feel like Gruesome :frown:
Give these 3-4 planes some more use... add Tank killer Planes to GV bases.
Thanx,
:cheers:
-
Great idea! Use them to defend airfields. Intruding on a vehicle field just to get more kills in your GV-Hammer-Plane type is more than a stretch. If you're after capturing the field using something else is smarter anyway, so your only excuse for insisting on the Ju87 (and other anti-GV rides) is mudhen status. Only poor tankers seek mudhen status. Never seek mudhen status.
-
Great idea! Use them to defend airfields. Intruding on a vehicle field just to get more kills in your GV-Hammer-Plane type is more than a stretch. If you're after capturing the field using something else is smarter anyway, so your only excuse for insisting on the Ju87 (and other anti-GV rides) is mudhen status. Only poor tankers seek mudhen status. Never seek mudhen status.
You play your game at 30k and leave the under 100ft stuff to me.......No!....... I would like a different style of game play that isn't affored me very often.
:cheers:
-
Mindless replies are not your usual style, so I think you are out of material. Lately all of my kills have been down low killing mudhens like you.
No, what you want is a fight where you are relatively safe from intruding fighters. You want to sneak in under the trees and seek mudhen glory. I can teach every tanker in the game to kill a vbase in seconds with no warning it is even under attack. What will you do then? Because you will be right back where you are now.
-
Mindless replies are not your usual style, so I think you are out of material.
:rolleyes: If I could have a team of fighters around me protecting me then you would be right........but as usual you just want an easy kill :( :D
Like I said ......you play your game alt dweeb,
But in case you change your mind maybe you can get your tank killer in the game,, we know what the "P" stands for<G>
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Mk11_zps619dc1c3.jpg)
:rofl :rofl
-
Now that we have firmly established that you are a mudhen, my work here is done. Your wish has been proven to be all about changing the game to suit your style.
Good luck with that one! :neener:
-
Now that we have firmly established that you are a mudhen, my work here is done. Your wish has been proven to be all about changing the game to suit your style.
Good luck with that one! :neener:
It would probably change the game for the better in the minds of the GV whiners. I would be willing to bet some of us would leave the bombs at home if we could up the much, much easier to kill can openers at Vbases.
-
:rolleyes: If I could have a team of fighters around me protecting me then you would be right........but as usual you just want an easy kill :( :D
Like I said ......you play your game alt dweeb,
But in case you change your mind maybe you can get your tank killer in the game,, we know what the "P" stands for<G>
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Mk11_zps619dc1c3.jpg)
Nice! Keep practicing maybe one day you can join the ELITE art group.
It would probably change the game for the better in the minds of the GV whiners. I would be willing to bet some of us would leave the bombs at home if we could up the much, much easier to kill can openers at Vbases.
That's exactly it. You want to up your chances of killing GVs in attack mode and improving your scores. This is all about your style of play. Shorter time to target (kills/time), fewer fighters to kill you (kills/death) and on top of that you get great perks too, right?
Not going to happen.
-
See Rules #4, #6
-
I care about score and perks?
The scoring system in this game is a joke, it has absolutely nothing to do with skill. As far as perks go I have more then I know what to do with.
What this is about is that I enjoy shooting tanks with a JU87G2 but I don't enjoy wasting 20 minutes flying to a vbase in the slowest planes in the game.
I think you mistook my reply in quoting you as a sign that I care what you think, whereas I was merely pointing out why your desire for this change to AH will never happen.
-
Nice! Keep practicing maybe one day you can join the ELITE art group.
That's exactly it. You want to up your chances of killing GVs in attack mode and improving your scores. This is all about your style of play. Shorter time to target (kills/time), fewer fighters to kill you (kills/death) and on top of that you get great perks too, right?
I thought it got the point across.
I don't need any perks and I haven't played for score since 1997. The trees kill me more than any fighter.
Make another guess, :D
:cheers:
-
Not going to happen.
I wouldn't mind adding single airstrip, maybe tucked away in the woods somewhere, for the vehicle bases. They need one for the Fi 156, and if need be by the map maker, they could spawn the ju87g, il2, hurri2d tank killers. Maybe just have one or two ordnance bunkers near the airstrip. Plus it would make a good place for wounded birds to land if you can't reach a friendly main airfield.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,359447.msg4768189.html#msg4768189
-
My wish is for the Tank busting planes to be allowed to take off from GV bases.
This is not the same thing kvuo.
I can teach every tanker in the game to kill a vbase in seconds with no warning it is even under attack.
The same thing can be used to knock out any auxiliary field. I don't think that would be needed, though. Any fighter could be on the scene as fast as these slower tank killers and defeat their plans even more easily.
The next whine by FlyingFin will be to have the Ostwind removed from the game. Then he will start in on every other AA-vehicle. Finally, he will want tank rounds to be transparent to aircraft. These are his whines online, so it will be no different in the wishlist forum.
The size of the new airbases, the closeness of towns and the number of vehicle hangars is all working toward making the horde even bigger. This auxiliary field idea is going to do the same thing. Hordes are the reason people are losing interest in the game I believe. It takes more people to win. More people means less kills and less fun.
-
This is not the same thing kvuo.
The same thing can be used to knock out any auxiliary field. I don't think that would be needed, though. Any fighter could be on the scene as fast as these slower tank killers and defeat their plans even more easily.
The next whine by FlyingFin will be to have the Ostwind removed from the game. Then he will start in on every other AA-vehicle. Finally, he will want tank rounds to be transparent to aircraft. These are his whines online, so it will be no different in the wishlist forum.
The size of the new airbases, the closeness of towns and the number of vehicle hangars is all working toward making the horde even bigger. This auxiliary field idea is going to do the same thing. Hordes are the reason people are losing interest in the game I believe. It takes more people to win. More people means less kills and less fun.
.
-
It seems that the OP would like to change the game in order to give his preferred choice of activity in AH serious advantages over his opponents. Instant access to his choice of targets which cannot outrun him nor defend against a well executed attack run, and can scan for targets on the battlefield which are beyond reach of any aa units and can be attacked with impunity for a measurable amount of time before an aa vehicle would be able to drive to the area and pose a threat to him, as well as a measurable amount of time before fighter cover could be called in due to the flight from the airbase he feels is too long and removes the risk of fighter interception on the way to and from his vulnerable targets of choice in his own aircraft. He will have the ability to take off when no fighter threat is present and likely wont be, within a couple minutes scan the battlefield and identify targets outside the possibility of aa support, with the added benefit of some of those targets are perked at a cost ranging from 1 to well over 100 at most gv fights and have no chance of getting to pavement where they can tower, kill as many as he is able to and land his kills well before a fighter can be scrambled in or a wirb can cover the distance of the 6k icon range.
Does this sound reasonable to anyone but him?
I find his proposal laughable at best, but I am not opposed to kicking around ideas so....
Grant his requests for ap anti tank aircraft at vbases, just perk them at a cost somethere between the jagpanther and tiger2 in cost to up one from said base and just like spawning vehicles, to safely land he will have to be outside a set range from any enemy gv within a bit longer range, say 10k. That would move the balance of power and risk some small amount from completely one sided towards the one we have now. Im fairly certain this would lead to a steady presence of fighter cover in the area at high alt and speed, little risk, and waiting for word there is a very vulnerable high perk cost target upping who wants to kill very vulnerable high perk cost targets and not have to spend 15-20 minutes to get to them......If the OP is as he claims not concerned about spending perks, and is given the opportunity to play in his ideal niche of AH, and have his instant on scene action he yearns for............
He will be making the long trip in an a20 to the battle from the nearest airbase....
-
It seems that the OP would like to change the game in order to give his preferred choice of activity in AH serious advantages over his opponents. Instant access to his choice of targets which cannot outrun him nor defend against a well executed attack run, and can scan for targets on the battlefield which are beyond reach of any aa units and can be attacked with impunity for a measurable amount of time before an aa vehicle would be able to drive to the area and pose a threat to him, as well as a measurable amount of time before fighter cover could be called in due to the flight from the airbase he feels is too long and removes the risk of fighter interception on the way to and from his vulnerable targets of choice in his own aircraft. He will have the ability to take off when no fighter threat is present and likely wont be, within a couple minutes scan the battlefield and identify targets outside the possibility of aa support, with the added benefit of some of those targets are perked at a cost ranging from 1 to well over 100 at most gv fights and have no chance of getting to pavement where they can tower, kill as many as he is able to and land his kills well before a fighter can be scrambled in or a wirb can cover the distance of the 6k icon range.
Does this sound reasonable to anyone but him?
I find his proposal laughable at best, but I am not opposed to kicking around ideas so....
Grant his requests for ap anti tank aircraft at vbases, just perk them at a cost somethere between the jagpanther and tiger2 in cost to up one from said base and just like spawning vehicles, to safely land he will have to be outside a set range from any enemy gv within a bit longer range, say 10k. That would move the balance of power and risk some small amount from completely one sided towards the one we have now. Im fairly certain this would lead to a steady presence of fighter cover in the area at high alt and speed, little risk, and waiting for word there is a very vulnerable high perk cost target upping who wants to kill very vulnerable high perk cost targets and not have to spend 15-20 minutes to get to them......If the OP is as he claims not concerned about spending perks, and is given the opportunity to play in his ideal niche of AH, and have his instant on scene action he yearns for............
He will be making the long trip in an a20 to the battle from the nearest airbase....
1. Is shooting a perked tank in a ju87G2 any worse than you doing it a T-34? I will submit it is much harder.
2. Lets remove spawn points for GV's then you drive from one base to another. ;)
3. In your tank you can see/scan much father than it can fire. You have near invisibility on the map.
4. You have the ability to take/spawn off with no fighter threat in a Tank in v-base to vbase action.
5. We should perk it because I fly it..... :lol
6. What does it matter how you get shot?
7. Tank killers fought with tank and infantry squads on there respective side against the opposition. We have these planes in the game for the purpose of shooting tanks not bombing them with lancs or 24's.
8. You just want to spawn ..drive to town/field ...blow it up in your tank... then run a m3 all by your self. :aok
9. Want to advance your tank bring your 1 of 100 built superlazerwhirlbelwagons that has a perk cost so that bringing a whirlblel has some consequence with you.
10. You could just up an Il2, hurri or yak your self and come shoot my ju87.
11. You have to have a really sharp eye in some cases to find a tank.
12. Your whole post is ludicrous, ripe with GV whine :rofl
Your arguments fall a we bit short laddy,
:cheers:
-
Which is why bombers have F3, F4 and F5 modes to simulate having a crew looking outside the bomber.
Overkill. Jump to those positions instead. :aok
-
It seems that the OP would like to change the game in order to give his preferred choice of activity in AH serious advantages over his opponents. Instant access to his choice of targets which cannot outrun him nor defend against a well executed attack run, and can scan for targets on the battlefield which are beyond reach of any aa units and can be attacked with impunity for a measurable amount of time before an aa vehicle would be able to drive to the area and pose a threat to him, as well as a measurable amount of time before fighter cover could be called in due to the flight from the airbase he feels is too long and removes the risk of fighter interception on the way to and from his vulnerable targets of choice in his own aircraft. He will have the ability to take off when no fighter threat is present and likely wont be, within a couple minutes scan the battlefield and identify targets outside the possibility of aa support, with the added benefit of some of those targets are perked at a cost ranging from 1 to well over 100 at most gv fights and have no chance of getting to pavement where they can tower, kill as many as he is able to and land his kills well before a fighter can be scrambled in or a wirb can cover the distance of the 6k icon range.
Does this sound reasonable to anyone but him?
I find his proposal laughable at best, but I am not opposed to kicking around ideas so....
Grant his requests for ap anti tank aircraft at vbases, just perk them at a cost somethere between the jagpanther and tiger2 in cost to up one from said base and just like spawning vehicles, to safely land he will have to be outside a set range from any enemy gv within a bit longer range, say 10k. That would move the balance of power and risk some small amount from completely one sided towards the one we have now. Im fairly certain this would lead to a steady presence of fighter cover in the area at high alt and speed, little risk, and waiting for word there is a very vulnerable high perk cost target upping who wants to kill very vulnerable high perk cost targets and not have to spend 15-20 minutes to get to them......If the OP is as he claims not concerned about spending perks, and is given the opportunity to play in his ideal niche of AH, and have his instant on scene action he yearns for............
He will be making the long trip in an a20 to the battle from the nearest airbase....
:rolleyes:
-
You may wish to reconsider this thought process, when it comes to ballistics, sights, turret traverse rates, method of track control, armor penetration, armor thickness,angle of impact calculations, you will find lots of very detail simulation, on par and in some respects more detailed the planes.
But just like bombers, tanks have a crew. And some method must be made to allow a single user , some of the same SA that a crew has.
HiTech
Since Im an old tanker :
True, but they did not share the same brain system so they have to shout out what they see, tell the gunner to aim at a target the commander has seen, its a process that takes time, and a plane is moving during that time.
In effect it made it impossible for a tank gunner to hit a plane not flying into his barrel.
-
You may wish to reconsider this thought process, when it comes to ballistics, sights, turret traverse rates, method of track control, armor penetration, armor thickness,angle of impact calculations, you will find lots of very detail simulation, on par and in some respects more detailed the planes.
But just like bombers, tanks have a crew. And some method must be made to allow a single user , some of the same SA that a crew has.
HiTech
Does the wirble have an accurate crew modelled?
-
Does the wirble have an accurate crew modelled?
Only if the gunner is a T-800 from Terminator.
-
It's been quite some time since they implemented it, but what was the exact reason for reducing the distance before fliers could see the GV icons? And what was the reason for not affecting the GV players the same amount, or at least some? I was away from the game for a while, so my memory fails me here.
-
It's been quite some time since they implemented it, but what was the exact reason for reducing the distance before fliers could see the GV icons?
gv'ers complained about getting killed by planes.
-
I could be helping my country if i could up at V65 on the Baltic map right now but no I logged :mad:
-
My wish is for the Tank busting planes to be allowed to take off from GV bases. Tank busters are part of the GV's game. I don't think its fair that GV's can run off to the corner of the map, or the center in this case, and get away from the planes and have their own little war. I don't care for the fact that GVer's don't have to join the game or have their own game inside the game where if they like can just go spawn and sit blasting away with no care about the planes. We have GV's on the air base we should have tank related planes at GV bases. There is already a hanger just need the re-arm pad.
Ju87G2
Yak-9T
Hurri IID
Ju87D-3
Il2
I like to shoot tanks I can't do that on allot of the maps or most of the time when I log in.... especially on Greebos Sanctuary map for GV's. Make it so we can shoot tanks anytime we like.
Put the air game back in the ground game,
:cheers:
i'm a bomb tard and a gv'er so i say NO!!!!!!!
-
+1 to mega's wish.
-
lets just make every field a large airfield with 163s enabled problem solved.... everyone gets what they want... ak to run to....ords porking....dar killing..vulching is harder....everyone gets what they want lets make em all 10k alt to
hate to break it to you but there is different fields for a reason with limitations for a reason
i would think this is partially do to the fact... well a V-base and an AF is different for many reasons as you would not have a FOB for ground assault and an airstrip in the same one? as your not going bring aircraft within threat range of a known armored divisions front line to re-arm/refuel/store? there for what v-bases help simulate is just that airstrips are airstrips for a reason...if you want said plane fly it there v-bases simulate more the "Advancing front line of an armored group" they are not air bases...for a reason
also most of the planes listed are rather decent ATA and would be used to defend...rather then kill gv's
-1(Storch giving people stupid ideas)
-
last night was great .. I hung out at 157 most of the evening killing gv's and dodging puppets :) sure is nice to be able to up my 87 and not have to fly for 15 minutes and get shot.
Dodging planes and still getting kills on GV's rocks :)
:cheers:
-
Your arguments fall a we bit short laddy,
What are you a diddlying leprechaun?
-
last night was great .. I hung out at 157 most of the evening killing gv's and dodging puppets :) sure is nice to be able to up my 87 and not have to fly for 15 minutes and get shot.
Dodging planes and still getting kills on GV's rocks :)
:cheers:
you have memory issues :headscratch:....you were talking smack, as usual and unwilling to back it up.......... as usual. :rolleyes:
I dub thee "cell warrior" :aok
-
you have memory issues :headscratch:....you were talking smack, as usual and unwilling to back it up.......... as usual. :rolleyes:
I dub thee "cell warrior" :aok
I don't care for your accent Pink :aok
-
So here we are again ozkansas V5/V6-V135/V136-V145/146 an FT really tt .....late at night and right now this is where the action is..
Just a fact... I cant help if more want to GV.....
....I just wanna get along with the GV's if there nothing else to do......the Air hanger is all ready there..... I mean it is just a matter of enabling a few planes their right?
Please allow a few planes 2-3 to up from GV bases for their intended purposes
Thank You,