Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Kweassa on August 08, 2002, 12:00:50 AM
-
This is in accordance with the recent discussions on .50 calibur rounds and GV penetration.
Now, I understand the mandate for balancing realism and game play depends on how well the game would function under the limits preset by 'realism'. Thus, when excessive realism would disrupt game play(ie. realistic terrain distances and fuel burn), the realism factor will be neutered down to acceptable ranges in order to keep the game 'fun'.
Thus, this would mean 'reality' in AH can be bent at will in order to keep the balance alive - sometimes, some part of reality has to be excluded to keep other parts of reality and game play alive.
(ie. Every field has has fuel tanks which can be destroyed. It depicts the importance of fuel resources, but even if all fuel resources are destroyed, planes can up withj 25% fuel - game play concession)
...
I am suggesting the same kind of concession be applied to GVs. Current damage modelling, it seems, is unappropriate to handle complex nature of damages often suggested by various charts on penetration and destruction. I understand many people agree on this matter that "GV DM needs to be worked out".
So in this case, I am requesting that HTC bend the 'reality' that some .50s might be able to penetrate Panzer armour, so it may effectively depict another 'reality' that MG strafing against tanks are in almost every case ineffective and useless, and special planes are needed for such tasks.
Therefore, I find that it might be necessary to exclude the 'penetration data' as a whole until a damage model which is adequate for handling the delicate data of differing penetration values as suggested in some charts. As it is, the current way of depicting penetration leads to results that defy the generality of MG vs tank situation as seen in WWII.
In the mean time(until an adequate way to handle penetration with DM is developed), AH should introduce a game play concession which gives immunity to Panzers against rifle-calibre rounds and 20mm cannons. This would benefit AH in these ways:
1) It would promote the usage of Panzers
2) It would depict ground warfare better
3) It would promote the usage of specialized ground attack planes which people rarely use
Point 1) will come naturally. The reason why people choose Ostwinds as the GV of choice in most occasions is because it holds formiddable AA capabilities. Currently the danger of even a single light fighter strafing a Panzer tank is so high that people will seldom choose the Panzer over an Ostwind. A "GV raid" seldom means awesome assortment of tanks, flak wagons and scout vehicles, but rather a hoarde of Ostwinds. If people can have faith that the Panzer can withstand small arms fire up to 20mms, they will choose it frequently.
Point 2) will come as people use the Panzer more. As the numbers of Panzer tanks increase in one side, the opposing side must increase the number of tanks equally. GV battles which consist of mostly flaks and few handful tanks, hopefully, will shift to Panzers and flaks balanced in equality. Precise bombing will be required for the Panzers as they will be immune up to 20mm fire, which will increase their survivability against aircraft. More Panzers there are, more real 'tank' battles there will be.
Point 3) as dive bombing and low level bombing, precise rocket attacks are a difficult task for the average level pilot, people using specialized anti-GV platform such as the IL-2 and the Hurri2Dwill naturally increase, as it is always easier to strafe than bomb or rocket. The points as explained in 1) and 2) would result in less flaks and more panzers, which will also increase the survivability of the low flying tank busters like the IL-2.
....
As a temporary solution, granting immunity to the Panzer up to 20mm cannons will be BETTER for BOTH game play and reality, than the current DM and penetration values.
-
Sounds good, but this only addresses the defensive issues.
Unless something has changed in 1.10 (and I haven't tested it), the Panzer is still worthless against buildings.
-
I would be totally against this and think you need to look elsewhere for solutions.
The main problem in AH is not the damage modelling... its the gameplay. A panzer is toast now because it is always deep in enemy territory with little to no air cover. That panzer would always be dead in real life no matter what penetration data said.
The Pizza map did the groundwar quite well. The panzers were used quite a bit more because there were areas where it was strictly gv vs gv. The panzer had more kills in one week than it had the entire tour preceding it.
If you make them impervious to specific types of gunfire, you open the door for the use of panzers as a "drive right up to your field" vehicle. That is more a-historical than anything you can come up with in regards to damage.
Sorry
AKDejaVu
-
I sense a glaring contradiction here.
The main problem in AH is not the damage modelling... its the gameplay. A panzer is toast now because it is always deep in enemy territory with little to no air cover. That panzer would always be dead in real life no matter what penetration data said.
Why would making the Panzer impervious to only three gun types(30calibre/7.92mm, 50calibre/13mm, and 20mm) open the door for the use of Panzers as a "drive right up to your field" vehicle?
A Panzer will be deep inside enemy territory with shallow air cover just the same, but only to specific gun types it is granted immunity.
Then, if it were so, why would it suddenly change the Panzer into something monstrous like that when the main reason for the weakness of Panzer you have stated - "enemy air cover" - is still present? Unless, perhaps the real strength of the 'air cover' in AH is within its ability to strafe, not of bomb or rocket?? ;)
If you really believe in what you have said, ironically, it actually demonstrates the point that the most formiddable air-to-ground weaponery an aircraft would use against GVs in AH is not bombs nor rockets, not heavy anti-tank cannons, but plain MGs and 20mm cannons. Why else would granting immunity to those weapons change the Panzer so much when the ability of the rockets and bombs to destroy tanks are all still there?
You have cleverly avoided the point by stating "That panzer would always be dead in real life no matter what penetration data said." Of course, that is so true - without referring to "what was the real reason behind the destruction of the tank in generality" that is.
Yes small numbers of tanks would have been dead in real life, just as in AH. But was it be because some desperate guy in a fighter strafed a Panzer from the side at low speed low angles and knocked out vital parts? Or was it because of organized air-to-ground strikes volleying loads of rockets and bombs in a deadly manner?
There is a big difference in these two which just cannot be 'skipped without mentioning'. I don't think even you are willing to refute the fact that strafing tanks were hugely inefficient way to attack in real-life, no matter what the possibility of penetration is.
If so, would a "concession that portrays the very inefficiency up to utmost maximum" not be better than the "pseudo-reality modelled by a data chart which seems to brings out the exact opposite results of what it was like in real-life"? :confused:
Would a "concession that encourages people to use specialized planes fit for the task they choose" not be better than every fighter plane being valid for the task and thus rendering the specialized planes useless?
What exactly have the people got to lose here?
Logically, there is no reason the Panzer would be able to just barge through every defense line even if it is granted some sort of immunity. After all, there are always planes with rockets and bombs, and specialized aircraft designed for the very purpose of strafing tanks. What the defending fighters won't be able to do is strafe every Panzer they see and knock the parts out and render it completely uselss. If they want to do that, they would either have to up an IL-2 or maybe a soon-to-com plane like a Stuka.
In short, there is nothing to lose, except the fact a plane lightly armed for A2A purpose won't be able to just discover a tank, go down and strafe it until it starts smoking.
Would it not be better off to lose that kind of strange fact exclusive in AH universe? Where people rely on mainly on small calibre guns to kill armoured vehicles?
-
I'll go for it with two other additions.
We "bend the reality" a little for the fighters and grant them immunity from the turret mounted MG.. since no gunner would really want to be up there popping away when under air attack.
... and we "bend the reality" a little for the fighters so that a fighter can hit a spawn point button and be transported right back to the GV spawn point at 5000 AGL with a new aircraft and ord.
Sound OK?
Anyone else want to bend some realities that I missed? ;)
-
Kweasa,
Panzers were made for attacking ground units.. not air units. As a rule, most of their engagements with aircraft involved alot of hiding. That goes for any ground vehicle.
So now... we throw them into a predominantly aircraft laiden war. There are no troops and no small arms fire to worry about. What are the panzers to do? Attack airfields and aircraft? Yeppers... you want to leap right out of the frying pan and right into the fire... don't ya?
Trying to make the panzers fit in with a predominantly aircraft laiden arena is always going to be completely gamey. The only way to start bringing things back to reality is to create a predominantly GV area where aircraft are more scarce and GV vs GV becomes your main concern. Only one map in the rotation currently does that.
Anything else is moving away from reality... and making the panzers near invincible. And I'm trying to understand why anyone would want that.
AKDejaVu
-
I like the idea!!
ok tone down the pintle gun on the panzer vs aircraft, forcing the gv's to bring mobile flak. oh yeah and increase the pz's effectiveness vs buildings and reduce the osty's.
SKurj
-
panzers dont attack airfields in ah. osties do.
panzers mostly roll to defend/engage ostwinds that are attacking/defending a field.
You ever try to kill a hanger in a pnzr? takes about a week......
-
Sounds fair enough, Toad.
Except the respawn thing doesn't really sound fair. Maybe a bit more lenient conditions for someone to get a proximity kill when a damaged GV pushes the "Hangar" button near spawn point would be compromise enough?
-
Counter offer then.......
When a GV hits the button to "spawn out" it takes the same amount of time to get there (GV is in computer limbo.. a big long pause) as it takes the slowest plane in the inventory to fly to that spawn point from the nearest field at default climb speed.
So, if it would take a plane 5 minutes to climb from the nearest field to the spawn point, the GV will be "lost in space" for 5 minutes after the spawn button is pushed.
That's fair, isn't it? More than fair.. it's making the GV as fast as a plane; faster really because some of those spawn points are a long, long way from the nearest VH. What an advantage THAT is during a GV attack, eh?
Deal?
-
Deja, your point is valid, especially the emphasis on the orientation of the game AH itself. No amount of 'fine tuning' in an air-oriented game will satisfy people with a fantastic ground warfare, that's true.
But since the objective of the war in AH is to grab fields, then Panzers should have a role in offensive tactics to fit. Currently, they are severely unable to do so because they are so pathetically weak. People marching to towns and fields take Ostwinds and M3s, never Panzers. They take Panzers only if there is a GV defending the town or field. I don't think the mainstay of mechanized units should be 37mm flakpanzers. Do you?
....
You say Panzers would start marching toward the field and town, and 'jump right in'. I say what's wrong with that? What's so different from current GV offensive where Ostwinds march into fields and towns? (One would think hoardes of Osties marching to town and field would be a lot more worse for fighters, no?)
I'm not asking all GVs receive immunity, but only the Panzers. Other GVs would be strafed and damaged just the same as now. The suggestion was to give the tank a more confident role within the ground-war element in AH, which, currently has no place for a Panzer in aggressive usage but only small, limited point defense as Wotan notes.
Why would you insist the Panzers would be invincible? How can them being granted immunity to limited certain types of weaponery make them invincible? What do the fighters have bombs for?
Would they be invincible to normal fighters without bomb and rocket ordnance??
Yes, of course, and rightfully so!
After all, wasn't that the reason why planes like the IL-2 were developed; because normal fighters could hardly take out tanks? Wasn't that the reason many USAAF planes developed such impressive A2G capabilities when they were getting ready to march in to Germany? Wasn't that the reason planes like the Yak-9T, Yak-9K, Hurri2D were carrying awesome 37mm, 45mm, and 40mm cannons?
...
So tell me again.
Why would this make Panzers "invincible" when planes aren't deprived of rockets, bombs or heavy cannons???
The only reason you would say so, as I have pointed out before, is if you think yourself A2G attacks against Panzers in AH, rely more on guns than rockets or bombs - that the main reason behind Panzers being destroyed and seriously disabled is due to machine guns.
How else can one interpret it?
-
Toad:
... and that woud contribute to GV and aircraft game play in what sort of way?
Come to think of it, what is the relevance of this 'spawn' issue you have brought up? That they are unrealistic and should also be fixed? That I am being "selective" as how I don't object to a certain "unreality" but request other "unreality" to be fixed?
...
Nice try, dude.
ps) raise hands now, guys. Be truthful.
How many of you miss your bombs and rockets against Panzers, and the real 'damage' you do is all done by strafing them? I'm guessing a real big number of people would be so.
And.. how many of you guys would be pissed that once you missed your bombs and rockets, you have to go get another set, since strafing them won't do shi*? Anyone? I should see a whole forest of hands.
...
Well, then, how many of you think you are lazy and should learn to use the right method of attack against GVs? Noone?
Funny, I seemed to see a lot of people suggesting "learn how to attack buffs, use the right altitude, speed, and method" when buff gun issues were up. Why would "learn how to attack GVs" piss someone off?
-
Actually, the point I'm making is in this example:
A few folks plan a GV mission against a base from a VH many miles away. No problem, because they can "spawn out" and get most of the way there in an instant. From this spawn point they are only a few minutes drive to a point where the base is in range of their weaponry.
A few defenders of the base are warned of this attack. They takeoff with bombs and rockets (assuming the immunity thing). Let's say it takes 3-4 minutes to take off, climb a bit and fly to the scene of the action, the spawn point.
A defender does an excellent job with his FM2. He hits one vehicle with his 2 100lb bombs and it dies. He uses all his rockets on another and it dies. He must now RTB and rearm.
That's a 6-8 minute round trip for him.
For the GV's he killed, it's the instant click of a mouse.
Doesn't seem right that GV's can teleport back to the battlescene instantly but that an aircraft has a distinct "cycle time" back to base.
In short, the "insta-spawn" is a significant FORCE MULTIPLIER.
How would you feel if the fighters above had a "Inflight Rearm" button that worked like the "insta-spawn" button? A floating "Ord Powerup" point over every GV spawn point?
From the fighter perspective, with "insta-spawn" no matter how well you fight and fly over a spawn point your efforts are essentially futile. The targets respawn far faster than your small amount of ord can handle.
That's why I suggested a spawn delay somewhat equal to flight time from the nearest base.
It still gives the GV's the ability to return to the spawn point in 1/2 of the round trip rearm time for the fighters.
That's fair, isn't it?
-
yep... plus.. I like killing panzers with my -1a. It takes half my ammo load at close range and most of the time someone else finishes em off and I get the kill but... I lke hitting em in the butt with a hundred rounds and seeing em start to smoke. Now they can either take the death and respawn in essentially the same place they were or.... they can be a marked or helpless target... More options than I have in any case.
lazs
-
Spawn points are out far enough to make the GVs drive
time to a base almost the same as a plane to another
base (gameplay concession)
Tanks should be impervious to 303s at least
-
Originally posted by Toad
That's a 6-8 minute round trip for him.
For the GV's he killed, it's the instant click of a mouse.
Doesn't seem right that GV's can teleport back to the battlescene instantly but that an aircraft has a distinct "cycle time" back to base.
The instant click puts the GV at least 5 minutes away from being in range of the target.
The downed plane takes at least 5 minutes to respawn and grab...
1 v 1 if its anything other than an osty, the plane wins 100% of the time...
You want to defend against several gv's take several planes, problem solved..
SKurj
-
So a "spawn point" option for aircraft that would put the aircraft at 10k or more within 5 minutes of several different bases would be OK then?
Because it sure seems to me that GV's from a V base have the ability to get within "5 minutes" of a whole lot bases with a single click. Far more so than aircraft trying to do the same thing.
Sure would speed up the action if aircraft could click and be at a decent altitude within 5 minutes of 3 or 4 different bases....
-
Toad don't climb and your planes are within 5-10 mins of the nearest bases just like GV's
SKurj
-
and while yer at it Toad from now on are you willing to up from your firendly field furthest from the action and then fly for 2 hours and only then can you engage if you see somethin. oops and i forgot, your 'real' CO says no lonewolf missions.
SKurj
-
Skurj, my overall impression is that GV's can "get to the action" at a greater number of bases and faster than aircraft can do so on most of the maps.
I'll happily fly over any terrain you like and cover any necessary distance to the fight at the actual aircraft speed if GV's will do the same. Travel over the terrain at actual GV speed.. and not be able to cross rivers if the bridge is out, etc.
How about this. Instead of "spawn points" just make the "spawn points" into actual VH's. Even mini-VH's. Or make the "spawn points" into damagable/destroyable depots. This would eliminate the "transporter room" aspect of GV's, make more targets for capture or destruction and basically "add to the game".
You guys would go for that wouldn't ya? After all, every actual place a plane or ship can originate can be both captured and/or damaged. So why not bring GV's into line with the rest of the game?
-
Toad enemy fighter bases were not this close in reality either...
Planes take longer because they usually get alt.. if they didn't.. they would be able to arrive at the target as fast as gv's
SKurj
-
So you don't want to make the GV spawn points into part of the strategy/war goals? I'd think that'd ADD to the GV part of the game.
You're comfortable with the "transporter room" concept? Adds to the immersion or whatever?
Let me ask you this then. Should a Val traverse 25 miles of terrain as fast as a 262? Should a CV traverse a sector of ocean as fast as a 190D9? But GV"S should traverse a sector of the map at the speed of electricity with the click of a mouse? Is that fair?
-
toad areas on the maps are impassable by gvs.
where in the arena are ac unable to fly to.
its not just a factor in getting there "quicker" but getting there at all.
ofcourse gvs wouldnt be used at all if the distances to a fight were any longer.
That might not be a bad thing.
-
Sure, aircraft have the capability to overfly just about any where and GV's are often restricted by terrain.
That's one of the reasons why aircraft became such an important combat arm, isn't it?
There ARE inherent differences and advantages/disadvantages to the various types of machine we can operate in the game. Seems to me though that the GV's get more than their share of "special consideration" in the game.
I really would go for making the spawn points into mini-VH's or at least make them vulnerable to attack like a depot or rally point would be. As it is now, the transporter room aspect gives a great advantage to the GV's and a large disadvantage to the attacking aircraft. IMO, of course; just my view of this particular aspect of gameplay.
-
So why not bring GV's into line with the rest of the game?
Sorry Toad, but I think you're all wrong on this topic.
Spawn points are an excellent devices to allow the gv's to be reasonably playable. For all the same reasons that the distance between fields is carefully controlled. You're speaking from a viewpoint of a person who almost never uses vehicles (checked your stats). You prolly don't care if gv's are playable. Other people do enjoy them (an ever growing percentage of HTC's customers) and the game should be designed in such a way that they can be enjoyed reasonably by those that do.
No a val can't ground as fast as a 262, but a panzer can't cover ground as fast as a m-3 either. The distance between airfields is controlled such that the "average" transit time for the range of aircraft is reasonable. The spawn ranges should be controlled such that the "average" transit time for gv's can be reasonable.
Its shouldn't take much longer for gv's to get into action than it does buffs and fighters. Maybe it should take less. A fighter or buff can put it on auto climb and go have a beer, watch tv, or make a samich. A gv player has to drive white knuckle every stinkin inch of the way. If he hits a single branch, bush, or pebble, his 10 ton battle tank explodes into tiny bits.
A gv also doesn't have any terrain cover to hide in as in real life. No way to duck into a stand of trees. No way to dig in hull down and lay some cammo netting. No appreciable amount of night time to cover his movements. On most terrains, teh gv's black dot can be seen for MILES even when they are completely stopped (so there couldn't be dust trails).
The remote spawn points are an excellent device to allow gv's to be utilized with a reasonable amount of gameplay. And gameplay and fun are the most important factors to HTC...thank God!
Are you REALLY willing to have to fly P-51's and buffs 5-6 hours (REAL TIME) to target and have 9 hours (REAL TIME) of nighttime for gv's to cover their movements? I highly doubt it. If so, then I'd be willing to accept real gv travel times.
Regards,
Wab
-
Why should spawn points have the "immunity necklace"? Why should they be different from the other objects in the game that allow the use of machinery? A spawn point is a VH, nothing more, nothing less.
Should I be able to take off from an auxiliary or dispersal field (they had those and used them you know) that is 25 miles from the "main field" as long as one hangar is up on the main?
GV's already get plenty of "consideration" in the game to make them attractive. There was a reason that armor without air cover liked to move at night. The transporter room greatly reduces the historical exposure.. and risk... of GV's to airpower. With spawn points, the Osti's get within a few miles of an airfield undetected; any such concession for airpower would fill the boards with howls of outrage.
I don't care for GV's; I find them boring. However, I don't care if other folks use them extensively; it's their nickle. I just think the GV's get more gameplay concessions than they need or historically deserve.
Just my opinion. We don't have to agree. :D
-
The transporter room greatly reduces the historical exposure.. and risk... of GV's to airpower.
And lack of terrain cover greatly increases the exposure .. and risk ... of GV's to airpower.
And lack of an ability to dig in and camoflage greatly increases the exposure .. and risk ... of GV's to airpower.
And lack of 9 hrs of night to cover movement greatly increases the exposure .. and risk ... of GV's to airpower.
And lack of any real low visability weather for gv's to move under (like rain, snow, fog sufficient to GROUND aircraft) greatly increases the exposure .. and risk ... of GV's to airpower.
The ability to spot a non-moving gv from thousands of feet and miles away increases the exposure .. and risk ... of GV's to airpower.
So, ARE you willing to fly 4 hours real time to the nearest enemy field? Are you willing to allow 9 hours real time of night in the arena so gv's can move under cover of darkness? Are you willing to have various airfields in a map socked in with weather for several days at a time or maybe the entire map rotation?
If not, you're being very selective in you demands for realism.
Regards,
Wab
-
That "consideration", Senor Toad, is not enough.
GVs are NOT ATTRACTIVE.
Only the OSTWINDS are attractive, and M3s are used out of absolute necessity. Other than those two, other GVs have no purpose at all in AH.
....
This "concession" is not about strengthening the GV effectiveness in totality(which, as you would comment "more than they deserve).
It is about strengthening only ONE GV(Panzer4) against specific THREE gun types(30cal/7.92mm, 50cal/13mm, 20mm) to help it withstand ONE type of attack(strafing).
We won't see more people suddenly hop in GVs if it became true, or somethin'. What we will see is people who use GVs in a regular basis use more Panzers, since their survivability against the most popular type of anti-GV attack - strafing(which, is an ability fighters do not deserve) - would go up 100%.
If another special "consideration" would help one GV be used more, and give it a nice role in current ground battles, would that not be a good thing? Especially if that consideration would revitalize another few planes which does not have any place currently - namely, anti-tank platforms?
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
you're being very selective in you demands for realism.
And the GV "supporters" in this thread are not?
C'mon Wab.. it's all "who's ox is being gored" here. No, I wouldn't fly 9 hours for one engagement. And you wouldn't DRIVE 3 days to get to an airfield attack. So how about we reduce both times by the same factor for gameplay. You know.. treat them both the same.
Bet we don't agree on that one!
Like I said, we don't have to agree. And we don't. I guess I'm a little like Laz and buffs with respect to my views on GV's.
Best part of the Pizza map is the outer GV ring. As far as I'm concerned, we could move ALL VH's to the outer ring. Then the tread guys could have their own sandbox without impact on air operations.
That, IMO, would be a major improvement. :D I bet we don't agree on this either?
-
The "immunity necklace" idea isn't going to float.
You know HTC isn't going to buy into that concept.... the next thing you know other special interest groups would be crying for immunity necklaces for their particular cause and it would be a mess.
What may happen is that HTC will simply move up the date for a review of GV damage models. They've already said they're going to revist GV's but, of course, they never say when. With enough gnashing of teeth, the subject may get looked at sooner.
But it was a nice try, Don Kweassa.
-
I don't exactly think the existence of certain number of people who demand a particular feature is a bad thing.
Remember how the "P-38 interest group" urged and finally received those tougher tail booms? I'm not criticizing them here.
That was a case of a request towards a certain change to strengthen a certain specific ride that they felt something was wrong with, and people generally agreed to it. The P-38s became tougher, but nobody claims them 'invincible'.
How is this case different from the P-38? Did the granted request "mess things up"?
The Panzers would be invincible to MG and 20mm cannons. But there is still plenty of effective and formiddable ways to kill Panzers. There is also an IL-2 and a Hurri2D, and a Yak-9T.
If the P-38, which people deemed had a too weak tail boom, got tougher, why can't a Panzer, which people deem so weak against simple strafing, receive the same thing? Sure, the P-38 didn't exactly receive 'invincibility', but then again, they didn't have inches of steel armour plating at the tail booms. The Panzer does, and the equivalent of the same level of 'strenghthening' should result in virtual immunity - or any level of strengthening so that people can pretty much agree on "yes, those tanks are near impossible to disable with MGs or 20mm cannons".
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
How is this case different from the P-38?
Simply because the DM was reviewed on the P-38 and it was altered. It wasn't made "immune" to anything.
In the case of the .50's and the tank, there is ample reliable data showing that .50 rounds will penetrate the thinner top armor at certain angles and ranges. To eliminate that would be obviously wrong.
Pyro has said (often) that the ballistic data is available and reliable and also that any Damage Model is always going to be inherently subjective. That's what happened to the P-38; a subjective change was made to the DM.
So, logically, what you'll see is a review/tweak of the subjective DM and not a change in objective ballistic data.
It's always possible that the DM review will result in something pretty close to the "immunity" you desire. Odds are that blanket immunity won't be given.
And now that this subject has been beat to death ...... Adios, Don!
-
Thus, we complete a full circle as we come back to the point where we started( :rolleyes: )... again...
Something which began with a question about a certain ballistics model which is claimed to model the "possibility" according to the charts, but obvioulsy has no regard to "probability in the historical context".
As people like me, brady, and whole lot of others have asked before and now:
"Howcome an 'accurate' ballistics model produces a result exactly opposite of what it would have been in reality?"
.. and so which went on, with me bringing up the obvious need to "bend", or temporarily "cease" one reality(ballistics against GV armour) to restore another(get rid of the 'strafing kills' from planes unfit for the job forever).
..
Nice talking ta ya Senor!! :D I think I'm a bit tired to go on for the next circle! ;)
-
In the case of the .50's and the tank, there is ample reliable data showing that .50 rounds will penetrate the thinner top armor at certain angles and ranges. To eliminate that would be obviously wrong.
If I remember the diagram that was posted, those 'certain angles and ranges' were near-vertical dives and ranges less than 350 yards -- a combination which gives the attacking aircraft a serious chance to fly through the cumulogranite clouds around the GV.
Planes like the P-47 made a name for themselves attacking resupply convoys and destroying locomotives, which were made of relatively mild steel to contain a uniform pressure from the _inside_, not withstand high-caliber machine-gun fire from the _outside_.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
"Howcome an 'accurate' ballistics model produces a result exactly opposite of what it would have been in reality?"
Because, as Pyro has said repeatedly, the damage model is subjective but the ballistics model is not.
Pretty simple, really.
Cya, Don Kweassa
-
Originally posted by Shiva
If I remember the diagram that was posted, those 'certain angles and ranges' were near-vertical dives and ranges less than 350 yards --
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/pyro/50chart.jpg)
Looks like about .487 inch penetration or ~ 12mm at the 0 line (90 degree) at ~ 1700 FPS @ 975 Yards to me.
Or at ~2200 FPS @ 500 Yards it'd penetrate .725 inch or ~ 18mm at the 0 line.
Or at 2200 FPS @ 500 Yards it'd penetrate .55 inch or ~14mm at the 20 (70 degree) line.
At least that's how I read the chart.
Rear deck armor is 12mm right?
-
BTW Toad.. those GV's can usually be stopped by 1k eggs on a vh which is less than 10 minutes away(by plane) from the field they are attacking.
The GV's have to kill at least 4-5 hangars to stop defenders
SKurj
-
no strafing tanks occur at 90 degrees or 70 or 60 its lo angle at ranges normally around 1000 yards.
thats the whole point of these threads. If you read umm (you posted a reply in everyone).
m2 has what 870m/s muzzle velocity = 2859f/s (chart shows 2 muzzle velocities 2935f/s for 45" barrel and 2845f/s for 36")
how much energy is lost over 1000 yards?
We need this to estimate striking velocity.......
In my experience in gvs, as limited as it is, the only time I was ever killed by ac was at lo angles and at ranges 1k and beyond. Could be an fe thing I guess but doudt it.
I dont know why folks assume that we are saying 50s should should never effect panzers. I said its not the ballistics that appear to be the "problem".
say at 300mph and diving verticle (0 degree angle) at what range would you feel safe pulling out?
-
Toad as Wotan has pointed out the thing is, that the realistic envelope for acheaving a penatration is greatly exageranted IN AH, Just look at Holligan's post on the General Forum, he is killing tanks with the 50 cal from the freaking Front, and with the MG 34, clearly this is not right.
I have my tank consistantly disabled from atack's by planes from out side the Effective envelope.
Toad I understand your pashion on this subject, becuase I seam to feal the exact oppset as you do, howeaver it has occured to me that you may just be playing the devals advacot here, for your postings are helping all those who feal somthings neads to be righted a great opertunity to prove their point.
I like the base concept of this thread very much, it would enhance the use of Ground atack planes and their by enhance and diversify gameplay.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
no strafing tanks occur at 90 degrees or 70 or 60 its lo angle at ranges normally around 1000 yards.
[/b]
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. "no strafing tanks" has me a bit confused.
Originally posted by Wotan
how much energy is lost over 1000 yards?
We need this to estimate striking velocity.......
[/b]
You don't need to estimate at all. It's there in the chart.
The 36" barrel is the aircraft gun. Muzzle Velocity is printed on that line, 2845. To find velocity at any other range, start at the bottom at the range you want, go straight up to the curved 36" line and, at the intercept point go straight left to read the velocity at that range. No estimation; it's published.
Now, once you have the velocity, you just go back right to the Degree lines (0 line is 90 degree incidence, 20 is 70 degrees, etc.). When you intercept the degree line, go straight down and read the penetration thickness.
All the info you need is there on that chart.
IOriginally posted by Wotan
I said its not the ballistics that appear to be the "problem".
[/b]
Then we agree. It's the Damage Model, which Pyro has always said is "subjective". It merely needs an adjustment. If you look back through the many threads Brady put up on this, I've never contradicted that.
Now, do you think Brady sort of got their attention? Perhaps to the point of irritation?
Maybe it's time to sit back and play the game for a while and see what happens.
I know what I do when my kids pester the living hell out of me and I'm busy with something else... even when they do have a point. :)
-
Originally posted by brady
the realistic envelope for acheaving a penatration is greatly exageranted IN AH.
[/b]
That's certainly a possibility. The OTHER posibility is that the damage model is not correctly handling the .50 impacts.
You agree that's possible? Good. 'Cause that's probably what they're going to look at FIRST, (given what Pyro has said). When they get to it. On their schedule, not yours.
Originally posted by brady
Toad I understand your pashion on this subject,
[/b]
I'm not really passionate about it. I really don't care what they do with GV's. When I have ord, I'll drop on 'em. Otherwise, I ignore 'em. If they infest an area and make flying difficult.. I just move. :D As has been pointed out, I rarely use them and I've admitted they bore me to tears.
Make 'em immune. Make 'em go downhills at Mach 1. Make 'em able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Change the name to Steel Tigers. Just leave me an ocean area where I can fly an FM2 without them bothering in the least. :D
What I dont understand is how come you didn't quit posting while you were ahead. One thread in Gameplay or Aircraft and Vehicles would have been plenty. You pointed out a problem, one that's been mentioned before. Fine. Give them a chance to fix it. Maybe the Mission Theater thing has them a bit tied up right now.. ya think?
I'm sure you'll take offense at this, but the multiple threads and the multiple "how long do we have to put up with this BS" comments put me in mind of an unhappy child. It shows a lack or respect.
What you pointed out will be checked in due time. We all know that; these guys are customer oriented.
The question now is do you have the courtesy and patience to wait a bit and see what they do before you post another thread.
-
Toad why the big pissing match m8t? I think after posting on this issue for a couple years adding a collorfull emotional adjective to a tittle is not unwarented, then Again I am a Forman in the Construction Industery and Being Collorful is prety much a prerequeset, If I offended you with the BS statement I am sory Toad.
Toad one thread was not plenty, their have been dozens of threads on this subject, and untill I posted in the general forum nothing was heard.
Toad why all the fuss if all you do is ignore them any way.
I generaly avoid posting altogether on the generl forum and all realy but the CT forum, and the Aircraft and Vehicals forum, because of all the BS ( woops their I go:) ) that they are filled with, no mater how well intended the thread how well put foth they always degenerate and get off topic.
-
As I said in ONE of your other threads in the General, justify your multi-trhead GV campaign any way you like.
It isn't me you have to convince, is it?
Did your Grandma ever tell you that "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"?