Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: lazs2 on January 01, 2003, 11:12:25 AM
-
Why do they spawn a couple of city blocks from the end of the runway? and...
Damage model... I am trying to figure out how that guy can be shooting at me with a pintle mount mg when I am pouring like 200 rounds fro 4, 6 or 8 .50 cal machine guns into the turrent... shouldn't the guy be ded? And.... if the turrent is open... shouldn't the rounds go inside the tank and kill everyone in there? How bout them open topped jobs like the osties... shouldn't even 30 or 40 rounds rattling around in there kill everyone?
lazs
-
I don't know about the rest of it, but I do think we should be able to kill the guy/gun in the coupola. Oh well, I really don't care since I don't spend too much time killing gv's.
-
How about using bombs instead of trying to strafe with puny machine guns?
-
A gameplay concession must have been made to keep people interested in manning GV's.
If the only AA defense in a tank is too easily killed then who would want to drive one?
Lastly, w/o adequate ground cover the GV's are all too easy to locate and kill using heavy ordinance, but I suppose that for non GV drivers this issue is lost.
-
The fact that pilots get a nice bright icon for GV's from 1.5k out, and that it's completely impossible for GV's to hide, far more than makes up for any perceived defensive advantage you think a GV has against a plane.
I also second what Kweassa said.
-
Lazs... the main problem is that GVs have been inserted into an environment where aircraft are their primary opponent. The only real solution is to get them into an environment where GVs, troops and obstacles are their primary opponent/concern and then you can model more realistic anti-air defense and overal strategies.
That seems to be quite a ways away. Until then, learn to deal with them in the context of the Aces High MA.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Why do they spawn a couple of city blocks from the end of the runway?
lazs
And where does that happen? Or do you have 3 mile long 'city blocks' where you live? Or are you refering to the friendly GV spawn point? If that is the case, why would you care?
-
Laz, you whiner.
Realism is the PRIMARY goal of the true afficianado of WW2 OL gaming.
Except that the need for realism can be suspended IF (and only if) suspending a part of said realism enhances a particular afficanado's primary area of interest.
If you're confused, I'll explain at Indy.
OK now?
For everyone else... does ANYONE have any historical resource that documents kills of aircraft from pintle guns? Any nation, any vehicle?
I've read how hard it was for an aircraft to "kill" a tank. How many "Ace" (Knights Cross/Diamonds/Oak Leaves/Swords?) tank pintle gun operators were there?
:D
-
Since you bring up German awards they did actually have one for infantrymen downing planes, quite a few guys did so apparently even with their service rifles. Go figure...
As for tanks, well I read interviews from german tankers and they basically said it was useless and they just threw up smoke and hid they best they could under air attack. I'd imagine it's the same for all tankers.
-
Next time I'll use a DSC, Croix de Guerre, Hero of the Soviet Union or Silver Star if it makes you feel better.
-
What kind of response is that? I just noted something odd I once saw about the medals/awards and you repond like that like it was some insult?
What the hell is wrong with you Toad?
-
Now Grun.. don't go getting all upset again. I'm just trying to be politically correct to assuage your tender sensitivities.
Geez. There's NO pleasing some folks.
-
The problem is that you are a Luftwhiner GRUN, haven't you figured that out by now??:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Since you bring up German awards they did actually have one for infantrymen downing planes, quite a few guys did so apparently even with their service rifles. Go figure...
ie. they shoot a plane, bullet hits engine, engines farts out black smoke as it passes said bullet, kraut gets a medal for pollution;)
I haven't heard of any tanks downing planes with the pintle guns, however i've heard of a p51 that was downed by a tigers 88mm:eek:
-
"Next time I'll use a DSC, Croix de Guerre, Hero of the Soviet Union or Silver Star if it makes you feel better."
Toad, then just go ahead and tell me what I missed. I guess i'm curious what in your mind made you think you needed to say something like that?
Or:
Did you think that was a joke and I should laugh, then explain the punchline.
Just telling you that came accrose as some sort of arrogant thing you often post.
-
As you like.
-
ah ha, found it!
(http://www.planestuff.com/lib/planestuff/p51downedbytank.gif)
not sure if it happened or not
-
Check the name Aces High it didnt say aces low.
-
That Czech girl is WAY over modeled!
COOL!
-
Hi,
Originally posted by Toad
For everyone else... does ANYONE have any historical resource that documents kills of aircraft from pintle guns? Any nation, any vehicle?
Yes! :D
Tirpitz shot down a Lancaster with her main guns when she was attacked the first time with tall boys.
-
And yet another thread gets spoiled by the "Great Luftwhiner Crisis of 2002/2003".
-
Next time I'll use a DSC, Croix de Guerre, Hero of the Soviet Union or Silver Star if it makes you feel better.
What is this supposed to mean after my response.
-
Sorry. Just been reading the Book of Proverbs and I'm going to take the advice therein.
-
Unrealistic gameplay in the MA???? Say it isn't so!
-
Ah... I see.. when it comes to realism and ground vehicles... all bets are off unless.... you want to make sure that their armor is tough enough to withstand .50's.
Shouldn't a close hit with even a 250 lb bomb or rocket turn a tank over? Or is that another "realism will spoil the gv game" issue...
and.... If realism is less important than gameplay.... why can't our CV's be about 5 times more impervious to suicide bombers? Certainly the CV is even mre a center of gameplay than the GV's
I don't know how far the GV's spawn from the field but... seems you have to fly right over the spawn point to get to the next field... seems that the GV's, like the fluffs... have no purpose without the fighters.
I have been wounded several times by the mg on tanks or them armored car thingies.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Shouldn't a close hit with even a 250 lb bomb or rocket turn a tank over?
uh...NO
-
I think laz has found his next target after the buffs have been eliminated from the game. Now the GVs, then the PTs maybe...soon we will all be flying blue aircraft with bent wings.
When they came for the buffs, I did not speak up for I was not a buff pilot...
When they came for the GVs I did not speak up for I was not a GV driver...
When they came for the PT boats, I did not speak up for I was not a sailor...
When they came for the 190s, there were no one left to speak up for me.
-
hortlund... if you don't have a leg to stand on then maybe you should be as frieghtened as the fluffers.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Shouldn't a close hit with even a 250 lb bomb or rocket turn a tank over? Or is that another "realism will spoil the gv game" issue...
Turn it over? No. Break a track or roadwheel? Maybe.
Which brings up another point that gets buried in the noise -- tank crews carried all the tools and the hardware -- extra track links (and on the PzKpfw IV chassis there was a rack to hold a pair of spare road wheels) -- to repair a broken track, which was a fairly common occurrence. Halftracks generally carried spare track links and a spare tire, and the M8 had a mount for a spare tire. It should be possible for a GV that's been tracked to repair itself, given time.
Perhaps some mechanism that creates an 'extra' crew position when you lose a track/tire that is outside the tank, and X minutes spent in that position lets you repair a damaged track/tire (duration dependent on the repair -- clearly, it's easier to change a tire than repair a track). Of course, if you jump back to one of the gun positions while you're repairing the damage, the repair time resets and you have to start over.
It wouldn't make much difference in MA play -- I'd expect that most people would just unass the tank, take the ditch/capture, and spawn a new one (well, except for the Tiger drivers, but that's what you get for remote-spawning perk vehicles), but it would add to the realism for scenarios to allow people to repair some combat damage without requiring a drop of vehicle supplies.
-
.50s can kill everthing except maybe Tigers. That's still the case.
A direct hit with any bomb will kill any GV with the possible exception of a Tiger. I've never seen a bomb drop on one of my Tigers that didn't score a kill with a direct hit.
As far as what bombs should do to tanks in various conditions... well... it seems that is defined by whomever is feeling pissy that day. Today it's you.
So lazs,
Other than being pissed because a GV shot you as you launched, is there really any reason for this thread? I mean... are you really asking about something because you think its a valid issue, or is this that chip talking again?
Please continue to argue realism (both sides of the argument) when it comes to GVs. Its not like they're being used in a capacity completely different than anything they saw in WW2... and that as a result, there really isn't ANY data to support any of the arguments/questions/answers being thrown around.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Mathman
And yet another thread gets spoiled by the "Great Luftwhiner Crisis of 2002/2003".
...and note how it was started. Toad's remark was rude and uncalled for. I have seen this pattern before, no doubt will again.
-
So deja... should the guy with the turrent gun be able to survive a few hundred .50 rounds bouncing around? should the crew in an open topped vehicle be able to survive a couple of hundred rounds rattling around inside their cage?
I admitted that I don't care for GV's... I also don't drop or even carry bombs.. so... maybe you can tell me... Is the damage done to GV's by bombs accurate or not?
Or... as some have said.... Like with fluffs.... should we just suspend realism in this case so far as damage modling goes even tho it is not a function of not being ABLE to model the damage so much as simply not modling it to help gameplay?
And... If this is the case then why not modify the damage model of the CV's to help gameplay and make them about 5 times harder to kill... that would help gameplay.
Or...is your only point that you don't like me bringing it up?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry. Just been reading the Book of Proverbs and I'm going to take the advice therein.
Now that is wise:)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Or... as some have said.... Like with fluffs.... should we just suspend realism in this case so far as damage modling goes even tho it is not a function of not being ABLE to model the damage so much as simply not modling it to help gameplay?
What you fail to realize lazs is that the damage model for the GVs is flawed in the wrong direction. It is much too easy to kill GVs in this game.
All your talk about spraying the turret full of .50cal would work on the HTs and the Flakpanzers sure, and it is possible right now to kill those vehicles with MGs only. But the tanks...the PzIVs and the PzVIs are wayy too easy to kill right now.
So watch out what your wishing for. Because if we would get a correct GV damage model, you would not be able to kill tanks at all, unless you used bombs or rockets and scored pretty much direct hits.
-
Let’s face facts; GV MGs do not even come close to reflecting reality. First of all, they are extremely vulnerable to fire from aircraft. If you have ever seen photos of armored vehicles after being strafed by aircraft, many of the turret-mounted MGs are missing, having been carried away by gunfire. No tanker would trade shots with a strafing fighter, simply because death was a near certain result.
In addition, having fired countless numbers of rounds through Browning M2HB .50 caliber MGs, I can tell you that hitting a moving truck at 1000 yards is a challenge, much less hitting an aircraft moving along at 300+ mph. There’s a reason vehicles like the M16 Motor Gun Carriage were developed. Armored vehicles simply cannot defend themselves against air attack.
In this game, GV mounted MGs seem to have laser sights, with ballistic computers. The guns are virtually immune to enemy gunfire, and it the gunner is fully bulletproof.
While a 250 lb bomb may not overturn a tank, it will toss a halftrack around like a toy. We also do not see the stun effect the over-pressure shock wave generates.
Resulting from the massive aerial bombardment preceding the Operation Cobra breakout (France, 1944), Advancing American troops found Mk.V Panthers lying upside down, have suffered near misses by 1,000 and 2,000 pound bombs.
I’ve made repeated strafing runs on M3s (halftrack), with no obvious effect. Yeah, right! 200 hits of .50 cal. API would have left it looking like a sieve. Meanwhile, that single, unprotected, completely exposed .50 cal MG shoots the wing of off my F6F! Gentlemen, it’s way beyond laughable.
I’ve killed 3 fighters with the 7.92mm machinegun on a Panzer Mk.IV! A Zeke, a 190 and a Typhoon!
Ridiculous!
Let’s not ignore PTs either. I’ve dropped a pair of 1k bombs within a boat-length of a PT, with no effect. I didn’t even get an assist when ship guns later killed it. The hydrostatic over-pressure of those bombs detonating would have crushed the plywood hull of the PT like an eggshell.
I’m with Lazs. These “concessions to game play” move well beyond reality, deep into the twilight zone.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Personally I dont see why it should be harder to hit an aircraft using a turret mounted .50 cal than hitting a fighter with a buff mounted .50 cal. What you say about tank gunners applies just as well to buff gunners.
Anyway, the stun effects of a 250 pound bomb stops when it hits the armor of a tank. If you think that the stun effects of a bomb will pass through armor without penetrating that armor first, think again.
Using Operation Cobra as an example of the effects of air weapons on tanks is a bit misleading since the USAF came with something like 1000 heavies and blasted a hole in the German lines. No one can tell exactly what had happened to those tanks. But I agree, a large bomb on 1 000 kg would probably tip a tank.
As for the results of your strafing runs on M3s, by the sound of it you must have missed the HT or you must have failed to hit any important components. Since AH doesnt model the crew or the passengers, thats the reason why you didnt get any results.
To me it sounds as if your major beef would be with the damage model of the .50 cal and nothing else...
-
add crew mem........add crew to vehicles!
-
you should be able to kill the troops while they are sitting in the back of the M3.
-
Hi,
an idea about realism and bomb impact close to vehicles.
The typical bombs do not detonate when the tip touches the ground or it's shock wave is going to all directions, it explodes (depending on the ground) more or less in the ground...so the shockwave is a cone upwards. the harder the ground is, the wider the cone.
That's one of the reasons why the Luftwaffe failed badly at dunkirk, the bombs had way less effects than usual because the ground was soft/sand, so a tank, or even inf could survive a nearby hit.
I guess you all remeber the bombs later used in russia with those shaft + a kind of plate as detonator...those bombs have a shock wave going in all directions.
just my 2 cent about bombs, GVs and realism. ;)
-
I personally have grown quite fond of GVs.
In fact, I spend 80% of my time in them since the last update.
I get a kick out of those who complain about how hard it it to kill one. Over the last 2 days I and many of my countrymen spent hours and hours trying to capture 64. Sometimes we got lucky and had air support. Othertimes...most of the time...we were bare-arsed naked with tons of read fireflies hovering above our heads.
We were getting bombed, rocketed, machine-gunned, sniped by spawncampers, sniped by prepositioned Mk.IVs and Mk.VI's in a crossfire that was a sight to behold. We were ambushed as we crested the hill and yes, we were being slaughtered by those B-17 jabo raids. We were trying to drive, evade and shoot back at Panzers with our main guns and aircraft with our pintle MGs...all the while trying to avoid hitting a tree and dying...and frantically searching for a gear that would allow us to move up those damn hills at more than a drunken snails pace. Guys were getting killed within a minute or two of having spawned...if wreckage persisted on the map it would have looked like Falaise or the Kuwaiti Highway of Death...times 10.....and you want it to be easier to kill GVs?
Fellas, we were blowing up and dying all over the place. The craters were so numerous I couldn't see to drive through them. It was amazing the persistance of these GVs but hey, it was fun as well. That persistence wore off for some of us but many stuck with it. If it were any easier to die, nobody would have bothered.
Oh yea, I almost forgot to mention that during this carnage someone would occasionally kill a fighter with a pintle mount MG...occasionally. It was far more likely that a pilot would compress into the ground trying for that kill shot.
Spend some time in some GVs and you'll quickly come to the conclusion that the ground war is a real war and that Gvs have an amazingly tough time of it. Make them easier to kill? LOL
The opposite should be done. Make them less vulnerable to aircraft.
Get in one for a while and you'll agree. Running GVs is a real biatch....er, challenge! ;)
David
"wings flutter while treads trample"
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Personally I dont see why it should be harder to hit an aircraft using a turret mounted .50 cal than hitting a fighter with a buff mounted .50 cal. What you say about tank gunners applies just as well to buff gunners.
Anyway, the stun effects of a 250 pound bomb stops when it hits the armor of a tank. If you think that the stun effects of a bomb will pass through armor without penetrating that armor first, think again.
Using Operation Cobra as an example of the effects of air weapons on tanks is a bit misleading since the USAF came with something like 1000 heavies and blasted a hole in the German lines. No one can tell exactly what had happened to those tanks. But I agree, a large bomb on 1 000 kg would probably tip a tank.
As for the results of your strafing runs on M3s, by the sound of it you must have missed the HT or you must have failed to hit any important components. Since AH doesnt model the crew or the passengers, thats the reason why you didnt get any results.
To me it sounds as if your major beef would be with the damage model of the .50 cal and nothing else...
I think you are confusing mechanical shock with atmospheric over-pressure. A direct hit would transmit dangerous mechanical shock throughout the vehicle. Any portion of one's body in contact with the interior of the tank would provide a conduit for that shock. It may not kill you, but it could possibly break bones. Atmospheric shock is that resulting from a dramatic rise in air pressure. Any people in an open vehicle would suffer the blast of air pressure that can cause serious injury to ear and eyes, not to mention being hit by debris flying about at very high speed. A 250 pound bomb striking a tank may not penetrate the armor, but the crew will be seriously rattled at the very least.
As to Buff guns; Well, ask any B-17 or B-24 gunner to examine our game modeling and you'll get a big laugh from them. Typically, firing at anything beyond 600 yards was a waste of ammunition. I read somewhere that it was estimated that it took 800 rnds of ammo expended for each hit on a German fighter, and as many as 14,000 rnds fired for each plane shot down. In AH, a short squirt from 1,200 yards will slice the wing off of your fighter. Again, it's like they have laser sights and ballistic computers.
Stop and think about this; These guns all have ring and bead sights!!!
Once again, this is all concession to game play. If AH bomber guns were as ineffective as they actually were, no one would fly singles or 3 plane formations of bombers. It would force them to fly in big formations and/or have an escort.... Gee, just like in the real world!
It's not the modeling of the .50 cal. gun, it's the laser accurate sights that bothers me. That, and the fact that you can't kill the gunners.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
That, and the fact that you can't kill the gunners.....
My gunner is smart enough to duck back down into the turret and button down when he sees a plane attacking..;)
David
"wings flutter while treads trample"
-
What do bombers and their gun modeling have to do with GVs and this topic ? :confused:
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
What do bombers and their gun modeling have to do with GVs and this topic ? :confused:
Hortland wrote: "Personally I dont see why it should be harder to hit an aircraft using a turret mounted .50 cal than hitting a fighter with a buff mounted .50 cal. What you say about tank gunners applies just as well to buff gunners."
That's where we drifted to Buff guns... :)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Ahhh .. thats where you got your foot in the door ... :D
-
As far as I'm concerned they can take the all dumb little tanks ,trains and other tunnel rat junk along with the pizza map that was built for them, and stuff it in the trash can.
-
I never said anything about GV's being too hard to kill... It's just that when I go at one with 4, 6 or 8 .50's I don't want to lose to one pintle mount mg fired by some guy out in the open... I also want to turn everyone in an ostie into hamburger with a well aimed, 2 or 3 sec burst from 4, 6 or 8 mg's.
Also... can you even kill GV's with any kind of bomb that is a near miss?
Now... if you are telling me that we have to suspend realism for GV's so far as damage goes fine.. but.... since realism is not a factor then shouldn't the tigers be more vulnerable to aid "gameplay"?
How bout the CV's? If they can be considered "GV's" then... why not make em about 5 times less vulnerable in order to enhance said "gameplay"? Certainly we would all agree that the game would be more fun if the CV's were not so vulnerable to skilless attacks.
lazs
-
The fact that you're complaining about straffing vehicles with .50s pretty much summs up the argument lazs.
I drive tanks about 30% of the game. I would love to be able to ignore all but direct/close hits with bombs (close hits do damage vehicles)... and not even worry about a plane that should be relatively innefective against a conceled/protected vehicle.
But that's not what the vehicles have been introduced into. They are out in the open, .50s will damage panzers and people will continue to straff no matter what because they really aren't worried about much else. Thus, you need to pintle gun.
By the way... you may want to check out the view from a pintle gun on a tank. There's a pretty glaring weak spot there that's easy to exploit.
Basically, there's no denying that GVs are very gamey in AH. I wish it weren't so, but I don't see a solution given the current arena setup. Once there are things like cover, then maybe that can change. Kinda like pinpoint hi-alt bombing... until the MA changed, it wasn't practical to do away with it.
AKDejaVu
-
Lazs,
I think that you need to spend some time in the GVs to lend credence to your observations and concerns. Your posts say that you don't.
Proximity drops do kill GVs, take out tracks, guns, and engines.
Like DejaVu pointed out ... pintle guns are very easy to avoid.
-
I don't drive. I fly. When one could reasonably expect an even fight, I would bomb or strafe gv's. If grabbing an M16 was the only way to defend a V base from milk runners I'd do it. Now, when gv's enter the scene I find another fight. It just ain't worth it.
-
I don't drive em at all. I don't care about pintle gun weakness or if .50's can take out a tiger. I just don't want a guy to be invulnerable to .50's while standing out in the open. Not in a tiger or an ostie or an m16 or whatever.. As for a panzer... wasn't it proven that the armor on the back and top were vulnerable to .50's anyway?
So deja... until we figure out a way to make the cv's not vulnerable to HE suicide bombs would you be in favor of (for gameplay till it's fixed) making the CV's about 5 times less vvulnerable? or some ratio less vulnerable?
I guess the problem is that it's hard for some of us to switch realities...damage wise.. from planes to GV's.. It is like the fluffs. Seems that the GV's are becoming more a part of the game so they probly need a little more lite shed on em.
lazs