Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MOIL on February 13, 2003, 03:17:34 AM

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: MOIL on February 13, 2003, 03:17:34 AM

Hey there gang, MOIL here, {Mr GV} I know  :}
I am trying to get HTC to add a new vehicle to the game for us GV'rs out there.  NO!, i'm not trying to make this a ground war game, but to add some more elements to the package of warfare.
It is the German Whirlwind "Whirblewind"  I think this would be a great "perked" veh to add to collection.
Four 20MM cannons can't be all bad:D

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: hogenbor on February 13, 2003, 08:37:05 AM

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy where the internet was in it's infancy, and we had to live with 1200 or 2400baud connections or with none at all because my parents wouldn't let me use their phoneline and I couldn't afford one myself,  a friend of mine bought a DOS game from a guy in a fighter pilot's suit, on a fair or something. This game was called 'Air Warrior' and what a silly old game it was!

The silliest thing however was the AA vehicle you could drive in that game. Curiously it was German and had 4 20mm guns. Sounds somewhat familiar...

(Oh, and there was a T-34 tank too if I'm not mistaken)

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Terror on February 13, 2003, 10:52:47 AM

Request this as the next new vehicle:

M18 Hellcat Tank destroyer

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/usa/m18_tankdestroyer.html

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: brady on February 13, 2003, 11:56:55 AM

A few observations:


    The Wilberwind, If people squeak and moan as much as they do about the osty because it is to dificult form to have to work at killing it, image the toejam that will fly if the Wilberwind is released. Esecehetaily a M16 that is as tough as an osty and has about twice the effective range as  the M16 and can do deflection shots as easy as a M16 can, those 20mm shels it firs are Super deadly by the way, more powerfull than an Hispano round if memory serves.

 The M18, it is open toped and lightly armored, it would be like killing a M8 from the air except easer to hit.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Terror on February 13, 2003, 01:22:09 PM

Quote

Originally posted by brady
A few observations:

 The M18, it is open toped and lightly armored, it would be like killing a M8 from the air except easer to hit.

This GV would be vulnerable to the air, but pretty deadly to the PNZR and TIGER.  With it's high speed of 50mph, would be great for hit and runs against other GVs.

Terror

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: brady on February 13, 2003, 02:08:31 PM

The M18 Main Guns is no better than the Gun on the Panzer MK IV, and depending on the ammo and range the MK IV gun is actualy better in terms of AP value. The very thin armor on the M18 12mm I beleave is the figure given is as thin as the top armor on the Panzer IV which is consistently penetrated by 50cal fire from aircraft, so the M18 could even be killed by a 50cal Pintel gun on a M3, let alone a M8 37mm gun. The only advantage it would have is it's High spead, which would be fun to be shure.

   Howeaver inso much as we are curently experancing a serious drought in any new toys from HTC, I would realy rather see any new GV effort put toward a M4A3 Sherman.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Arlo on February 13, 2003, 02:24:22 PM

Geez ....

Events need an allied heavy. The Sherman (or variant of) is the best choice for Western Europe events ... the T-34 for Eastern Europe events. Since TOD is specifically aimed at being a 24 hour a day Axis vs Allied event ... adding vehicles that enhance it seems to make the most sense. Those same vehicles can enhance Classic if players aren't too "gimme the uber/experimental/rare piece of equipment that can kill everyone else with ease" mentality).

p.s. ... there's enough German armor.

thankyathankyaveramuch

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Arlo on February 13, 2003, 02:26:23 PM

Amen, brother! :D

Quote

Originally posted by brady
I would realy rather see any new GV effort put toward a M4A3 Sherman.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: HoHun on February 13, 2003, 02:46:49 PM

Hi Brady,

>The Wilberwind, If people squeak and moan as much as they do about the osty because it is to dificult form to have to work at killing it, image the toejam that will fly if the Wilberwind is released.

Historically, the Ostwind was an improvement over the Wirbelwind since 20 mm (or less) was considered insufficient for anti-aircraft purposes. (This matched the British experience.)

Other than the guns, there was not much difference between Wirbelwind and Ostwind - they used a similar open-topped gun turret on a Panzer IV chassis.

The Wirbelwind predecessor SdKfz 161/3 actually had twin 37 mm cannon, but it didn't have any gun crew protection and could only open fire after lowering to turret sides to form the crew platform, so it was really lacking in mobility.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: brady on February 13, 2003, 03:16:41 PM

"Historically, the Ostwind was an improvement over the Wirbelwind since 20 mm (or less) was considered insufficient for anti-aircraft purposes. (This matched the British experience.) "

   Ture this is, howeaver in AH most people have a very hard time hitting with the osty during deflection shoting, the spray and pray potential of the Quad 20mm gun mount on the Wilberwind would defentaly enhance it's hit potential imo, Historical fact and In game reality do not always coincide. Also just a few pings of the 20mm ammo would toast most planes, just like a few pings of 20mm Hispano ammo toast most planes.


"The Wirbelwind predecessor SdKfz 161/3 actually had twin 37 mm cannon, but it didn't have any gun crew protection and could only open fire after lowering to turret sides to form the crew platform, so it was really lacking in mobility."

 Their was no Twin 37mm mount produced on the Mobile wagon series, the 37mm mount was a single gun, the same gun as used on the osty( I beleave), and the Quad 20mm mount produced in the mobile wagon sieries was the same as used in the Wilberwind, although in an open mount similar to that shon in the picture.

 
2cm Flakvierling 38 auf Sfl PzKpfw IV SdKfz 161/3

3,7cm Flak 43 auf Sfl PzKpfw IV SdKfz 161/3( shown Bellow)

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Terror on February 13, 2003, 03:33:29 PM

Check the M15 in this thread.  I think this would be a nice addition for AA vehicles:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64793&highlight=multiple (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64793&highlight=multiple)

And more info here:

M15 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/usa/m15_gun_motor_carriage.html)

Terror

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Terror on February 13, 2003, 03:36:06 PM

How about the M26 Pershing?  Looks like this would be good opposition to the TIGER.  A 90mm main gun should have some punch....

Terror

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: brady on February 13, 2003, 04:53:37 PM

I think their were only 7 in Europe, at the very end of the war, they saw some action, but it was quiet limited. A better choice imo would be a M4A3, it could be used a lot more(the Sherman) in events and the CT and would be non perked.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: AGJV44_Rot 1 on February 14, 2003, 12:49:47 AM

I know of a Nashorn killing a pershing on west front but as far as its action was rather limited.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Arlo on February 14, 2003, 01:27:55 AM

:D

Quote

Originally posted by brady
I think their were only 7 in Europe, at the very end of the war, they saw some action, but it was quiet limited. A better choice imo would be a M4A3, it could be used a lot more(the Sherman) in events and the CT and would be non perked.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Jester on February 14, 2003, 01:46:00 AM

Since the OSTWIND, WHIRBLEWIND & MOBELWAGEN where in reality all very "rare" on the battlefield a better replacement might be the SDKFZ. 7/2 FLAK TRACK with the 37mm Flak 36.
It has an armored drivers compartment to avoid strafers though the gun crew is a bit more exposed than on the M-16.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Jester on February 14, 2003, 01:49:49 AM

If you want to go with the open top and the 20mm gun set you could go with the  SDKFZ. 7/1 with the Quad 20mm Flakvierling 38. This same chasis also had a single 20mm gun mounted. This would bring it into the same catagory with the M-16.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Jester on February 14, 2003, 02:04:09 AM

Some Observations on AH Armor:

1. As each side has a dedicated Flak vehicle I don't see us getting another one of ANY type for some time to come.

2. As there are only German tanks - our first and primary need is either the T-34/85 (My Choice)(Stick a MG on it for AA defense, I can live with it) or some version of the Sherman. (Jumbo or Firefly).

3. A version of the German Sdkfz. 250 Half Track could give us an AA version like the M-16 and a troop carrier like the M-3.

WHAT ELSE WE NEED:
1. Damage models for GV's redone.
2. Spawn points to have random points of appearance in a area not just one specific point. No two the same.
3. A moving front line would be nice also.


Soapbox Time: I would really like to see the ground war develop more in AH or at least the Combat Arena in AH. All us "Treadheads" owe Kanttorri a LARGE for his work on the Fin/Rus map with all the tank points and his new tank villages.
Only way we are gonna get these things is to pull together and let HTC know what we want.

Title: Great Ideas!!
Post by: MOIL on February 14, 2003, 02:22:37 AM

First off, thanks for all your great input!  I'm glad to see others as interested as myself in the GV dept. :)
I do like the SDKFZ.7/1, it was actually my 2nd choice, I'm not sure we need another "tank" in the game we already have 4 {although the Sherman wouldn't be a bad idea}
There was something said about the vehicle {Whirblewind} being had to kill like an Osty, I dont think this would be an issue since the Osty & M16 are farely easy to disable, espeacially the M16.
Many, many times i have been taken out or had my main turret disabled in my Osty or M16 just from planes strafing me or the worst--> rockets & bombs. We'll see what happens.
Thanks again for your input and ideas,  MOIL ~LTAR~

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Frogm4n on February 14, 2003, 03:14:18 AM

yea lets get the pershing, we need a vehicle that did little to no fighting in the real war. I cant wait to see them all over the place.
screw the sherman t34 and pantherD

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: LLv34_Snefens on February 14, 2003, 04:19:05 AM

I recently bought a nice book about German tanks. In the appendixes there is a list of numbers produced throughout the war:

[b]Self propelled anti-aircraft guns[/b]
2cm FlaK30 or 38 auf Zgkw 1t (Sd Kfz 10/4)         610
2cm Flak38 auf Pz Kpfw 38(t)                       141 (11)
2cm Flakvierling 38 auf Zgkw 8t (Sd Kfz 7/1)       319
2cm Flakvierling 38 auf Pz Kpfw IV, 'Wirbelwind'    87 (87)
3.7cm FlaK36 auf Sd Kfz 6/2                        339
3.7cm FlaK36 auf Sd Kfz 7/2                        123
3.7cm FlaK36* auf Pz Kpfw IV, 'Möbelwagen'         240
3.7cm FlaK43 auf Pz Kpfw IV, 'Ostwind'              44 (37)
8.8cm FlaK18 auf Sd Kfz 8 / Sd Kfz 9                25

Numbers in () are the number of the vehicles produced by conversion.
*) One place the Flak36 L/96 is mentioned for the Möbelwagen, the other it is FlaK43 L/60.
Not mentioned here are vehicle only produced as prototypes, like for instance the 'Kugelblitz' or the 3cm Flakvierling (Wirbelwind with MK103 instead)

__________________
Ylil. Snefens
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
My AH homepage (http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens/index2.htm)
(http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens/209.gif)

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Tilt on February 14, 2003, 04:33:20 AM

Seems to me we have a std tank and a heavier tank..............

In the context of AH adding later Shermans and T34's would simply add a higher plain of fire power and armour.

The GV interface with buildings, structures and the like is not so refined as to make this a rewarding venture..........

I would suggest that any GV's should look to expansion in range of type rather than increase in calibre and armour.

To this end I would offer the Studebaker truck and trailer........

It would have several load out combinations

Trailer Loadouts

24 x 185mm Katyusha rockets

or

5" field artilery or AA artilery (with just a few shells)

or

field supplies

or

vehicle supplies(excluding 5" shells or katyusha rockets)

Truck loadouts

24 x 185mm Katyusha rockets

or

Shells for 5" field artilery or AA

or

field supplies(two lots)

or

general vehicle supplies (two lots)(excluding 5" shells or katyusha rockets)

or

troops


To deploy the trailer you would have to stop. Press the "open bomb bay door button" and wait for the trailer to prep (maybe 30 seconds)

You then access the trailer via the normal gunner view keys.

Closing bomb bay doors packs up the trailer so the truck and trailer can move to another position.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Terror on February 14, 2003, 11:15:52 AM

Quote

Originally posted by brady
I think their were only 7 in Europe, at the very end of the war, they saw some action, but it was quiet limited. A better choice imo would be a M4A3, it could be used a lot more(the Sherman) in events and the CT and would be non perked.

I don't think limited use during WWII has been a major factor in HTCs decision to model units in AH.  Look at the ME262, ME163, F4u-1C, TA152.  All very limited production/use during WWII.

The Sherman would just be fodder for the PNZR and TIGER.  Even if we get the 105mm version...

Terror

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Arlo on February 14, 2003, 12:16:31 PM

Limited use may well be more of a factor, given the nature of TOD. I think priority will go to making sure historical matchups can be better accomplished (and rightly so). There's some uber-fluff already. There probably will be more as time goes by but I don't see it getting top billing anymore.

Thank cod.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: brady on February 14, 2003, 12:52:58 PM

Terror, you are right that prduction numbers do not realy play a factor in determing what is built or not built, but as Arlo points out the Pershing would not fit in 95% of any event or CT set up not to mentoin the ToD, also presently we Have a Heavy tank, if another Heavy were added one as capable as the Pershing would be then a better tank that saw more service could easly be added in it's stead that saw much more service, a Panther, JS-II ect.

 Tilt, Pyro once mentioned the posabality of adding Artileary to AH, but this has yet to matearilise, other than ship born guns which are somewhat limited in their efectivness.
  Imo the idea of adding soft skined vehicals that would have virtualy no defense from the air, be extrodanarly easy to kill from even the weakest armed planes and provide thier users with no means of securing a safe landing in an offensive sortie would not be popular choices for use in the Hanger and would consume considerable resources in terms of construction time from AH. Like most things that are debated in AH for inclushion one has to ask thenselfs at what price are we ariving at this new toy, what are we giving up or putting off, to that end the adation of another GV shuld imo be one that can be redaly adatpted to a number of uses and at the same time be a popular choice, clearly the Sherman fits that bill.

 Moil and Andi, Moil is corect imo that the Osty is very easy to kill and or disable, howeaver I suspect a large part of the AH comunity would disagree with this statement.
  If we consider Mobil AA platforms in AH and ask ourselfs what their true function is we must concead first that in AH Airplanes interact with the GV's in a compleatly unrealisitc envoiurment and to a compleatly unrealistic effect in terms of their abaility to kill them. Having said that the function of mobill AA platforms in AH is to make the ground aspect of game play a viable one, one in which the player has a chance aganst such stacked odds. The AA platform nead to have some meashure of protection and hitting power, clearly the M16 is extreamly easy to kill, and the osty is imo only marginaly tougher, yet the osty is the best posable choice we could hope for and we have it, providing what amounts to field guns on trucks is not going to help anyone or help this cause and it will burn up AH construction time for platforms that bring nothing to new AH in terms of efectivenss or, surviabality over what we presently have. Even the vaunted Tiger can be killed with a siingle 500 pound bomb, the only saving gracce hear is that not all the AH players posses the skill/luck to deleaver a 500 bomb on target with the frequancy to make even the Tiger as easly killed as all the other GV's in the eventory.


   Somthing to bear in mind,We will imo be extreamly lucky to see a new GV in the next 6 months, so if you had to chuse and chuse only one......

  Man I nead a nap after all that:)

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Sakai on February 14, 2003, 03:42:45 PM

Quote

Originally posted by brady
I think their were only 7 in Europe, at the very end of the war, they saw some action, but it was quiet limited. A better choice imo would be a M4A3, it could be used a lot more(the Sherman) in events and the CT and would be non perked.

Brady is good, Brady is wise:

The Sherman is best choice since you can do the ubiquitous M4A3, the "Easy 8", the English Firefly, and the 105 Howitzer version all on the same model.  Since variations are easier to model than originals, you could get a serious lot of armor out of the M4A3 modeling project!  Also, you'd have the D-Day amphib tank for ship to shore ops, and that would be cool.

After the Sherman, need the T-34/76.

After that, how about some early war tanks?  Japanese Chi-Ha?  You could model the Stuart and use it as a proxy for early war armor.

I also wouldn't cry in my wheaties if an M7 Priest, Wespe, or some towed artillery made it into the game.

Sakai

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: HoHun on February 14, 2003, 04:03:49 PM

Hi Brady,

>Their was no Twin 37mm mount produced on the Mobile wagon series

Oops! I should know better than to trust websites, but when it comes to tanks I have no other choice :-)

>the 37mm mount was a single gun, the same gun as used on the osty( I beleave),

The unreliable website I quoted said the early 37 mm was a L60 gun while the Ostwind's was a L70.

The only thing I can say for sure is that the correct spelling is "Wirbelwind" - other than that, I'm clueless :-)

Fascinating topic nevertheless, we should try and get Tony into this thread!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: brady on February 14, 2003, 05:32:10 PM

I have been burned by websights before ae well:)

   The book: Encylopedia of German Tanks of World War Two, states that the Osty and the Mobilewagen Sd Kfz 161/3 both used the 3.7cm Flak 43/L60.

 Ya know I hadent thought of that saki, the M4105 would Rock!, and the Firefly would give the Tiger great pains.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Tilt on February 15, 2003, 06:27:56 AM

Quote

Originally posted by brady
Imo the idea of adding soft skined vehicals that would have virtualy no defense from the air, be extrodanarly easy to kill from even the weakest armed planes and provide thier users with no means of securing a safe landing in an offensive sortie

Except of course these things would be in artillery/katyusha  range range from the spawn point...............

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Sakai on February 15, 2003, 06:58:28 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Terror
The Sherman would just be fodder for the PNZR and TIGER.  Even if we get the 105mm version...

Terror

The early war, like Desert, Shermans ruled.  Most of the tanks they encountered were likely Mk IIIs though (?).  They were also extremely reliable which would ne nice if they got some sort of deference for that quality.

The rap on them is the stubby, low velocity 75s on the M4A3.  The E8 and Firefly would be the match or superior of the Pzkfw Mk IV, IMO.  Both had long barrelled, high velocity guns that were deadly on armor.

Sakai

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Sakai on February 15, 2003, 07:14:14 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Tilt
Seems to me we have a std tank and a heavier tank..............

In the context of AH adding later Shermans and T34's would simply add a higher plain of fire power and armour.

The GV interface with buildings, structures and the like is not so refined as to make this a rewarding venture..........

I would suggest that any GV's should look to expansion in range of type rather than increase in calibre and armour.

To this end I would offer the Studebaker truck and trailer........

It would have several load out combinations

Yes, and along that line a light tank--and again I would state a preference for the Stuart--as a proxy for all early war armor (and IJA-Italian armor).  The Pzkfw II would be another excellent choice.

Sakai

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: brady on February 15, 2003, 12:46:47 PM

The M4A3 with the 76mm gun is a prety good match over all for the Panzer IVH they are prety even at least inso much as their abaility to kill one another is concerned. Also both would have as  hard a time killing a Tiger.

Tilt  "Except of course these things would be in artillery/katyusha range range from the spawn point..............."

 So you spawn fire and die, spawn,and take a death in doing so. Or you have ammo brought up and sit and fire till it is all gone. Mean while somone like me who loves to kill GV's with planes orbits the spawn point and just racks up the kills aganst soft skind targets who may not actualy be hitting anything and have no apricable means of defending themselfs.
  I do think it is a cool idea but it realy goes back to the point of what are we willing to give up to get it, GV's come prety slowly to AH to ask for a system that is as vulnerable as this is and would have a neglable effect and little posable reward for the player, who is going to sacrifice rank to do it 9 times outa 10 is maybe not a good place to point or hope HTC goes in terms of creating a new GV.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Tilt on February 16, 2003, 05:37:45 PM

Quote

Originally posted by brady
not a good place to point or hope HTC goes in terms of creating a new GV.

Well this is all opinion of course........my view is that we have "tanks"...we dont need new ones unless they bring some thing new.............. the  ones we have are quite sufficient we have a full range from light armoured vehicle to heavy tank.

Within the bounds allowed by AH they are fairly well modelled and good fun............ unlike AC the terrain does not allow subtle differences to be fully played out......

Spawn camping  kills any thing............... heavy long range field artillery should require team work (osty or M16 guard) it is also very effective..............   and yes folk do go to a gun battery/ ships gun and fire some stuff off then rtb.

From the list above the howitser option seemed different.........the rest just seems to me to be much the same with a different name once it actually gets into the scenario or the ma.

The ability  for two players to spawn such a thing and put up a 5"  AA barrage over any field seems pretty devasting........enough to consider such a thing to be perked............. I would not rule it out as an in effective weapon.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Arlo on February 16, 2003, 06:16:54 PM

Tiltster .... being a member of the "Aces High Scenario Corps", you surprise me. You'd think having scenarios where the Russians or Americans .... or, heck ... the Japanese ... are all toolin' around in Panzers would be a bit of a let-down. I know most of the scenario-minded players I know (self included) feel that way.

Of course, you may feel that tank battles have no place in scenarios anyway ... there weren't any, really, in the war, you know. ;)

I'm looking forward to the Battle of the Bulge panzer vs panzer snapshot someday. :D

Quote

Originally posted by Tilt
Well this is all opinion of course........my view is that we have "tanks"...we dont need new ones unless they bring some thing new..............

Title: New veh
Post by: MOIL on February 16, 2003, 09:52:34 PM

I'll agree, I never said I wanted another "tank" added to the game, just a Whirblewind.  It's not a TANK, it's an anti-aircraft weapon. IMO we have enough tanks in the game {although there was some mention of a Sherman} that would be nice too, only because it would be the only Allied tank in the game.
Thanks again for all the great ideas fellas

                            MOIL

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: brady on February 16, 2003, 09:54:34 PM

Well Tilt I see your point, field guns and Ships dont effect rank howeaver, not that everyone plays for rank of course.

  How about this as a counter, A Hummel instead of a truck and a towed weapon, just use the Panzer chasie we have now and throw a 150mm gun on it and a new superstructure and their ya go artillery and a more surivable platform that you could actually stand a chance of landing, some even had AA MG's. New weapon type for GV's artillery and uses up a minimal amount of production time.
    Or do a sherman, and a Priest, although 105 mm doesent sound as juicy as 150mm:)

       I would kinda like to see a Sherman for the reasions arlo mentions howeaver.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Tilt on February 17, 2003, 05:47:18 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo


Of course, you may feel that tank battles have no place in scenarios anyway ... there weren't any, really, in the war, you know. ;)

A wish list could be as long as  a piece of string...........

I think the Niemen scenario has more tank battles than any previous AH scenario ......... Frame 2 just had several full scale multi tank on tank, and gv on gv battles........ the terrain was set just for this and it happens.

I would have prefered it even more if I could have modelled the shear weight of Red army artillery and Katyusha out of range of Whermacht armour.

The compromise as brady says is some form of 4" howitzer on a tank bed......... maybe with a single mg on the top..(several WWII GV's like this).... problem with  this is  load out becomes a single variant.

Where as a truck can be asked to tow any thing and the options of 5" or katyusha can be formidable........ it could also tow 37mm anti tank/ anti air and 75mm anti tank.................  it could also carry "camoflage netting" as part of its loadout .

Some may notice that a truck is already rendered in the AH object list with external art work........ i doubt its FM would be so different from an M3 (speed lessened by the load of the trailer) or its damage model so different from an M3 although probably weaker still.

Upon deployment we already have the 37and 75mm ap and he, and the 5" battery gun is modelled with he and AA. We already have troops and field supplies....... all we do not have is a generic piece of trailer art and the katyusha stuff. (so may be katyusha would have to wait)

As for camoflage? well we already have ground to ground lack of enemy icons......... so we add ground to air and switch off the rendering once stuff is deployed

(30 secs of high vulnerability) ........viola camoflage. You only spot it by the muzzle fashes.  (It takes another 30 secs to take it down.)

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Arlo on February 17, 2003, 08:44:33 AM

And yet ... still ... the Sherman and the T-34 come off to me as a more immediate necessity and improvement to AH where scenarios are concerned. Maybe it's just me. No ... wait ... it isn't. ;)

Honestly ... I like your suggestions as well ... I just see them as the cart and some decent allied tanks as the horse. You may see it the other way around (which, of course, you have every right to). I just hope the rest of the AH Scenario Corps doesn't.

Salute!

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: Sakai on February 17, 2003, 08:53:02 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
And yet ... still ... the Sherman and the T-34 come off to me as a more immediate necessity and improvement to AH where scenarios are concerned. Maybe it's just me. No ... wait ... it isn't. ;)Salute!

Agreed, but given the diverse set of vehicles now, I think I'd still rather see either the He-111 or Ki-84 or I-16 or Il-4 before I saw three new GVs.  You know?  I mean, TOD is where it is going to be "at" and the new modeling should go into AC before we worry about Vehicles.

That said, yes, the Sherman and T-34 would really go a long way towards making the scenarios better.  

Sakai

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: brady on February 17, 2003, 11:46:43 AM

Back A while ago, the First Scenaro I played in Was "Africa" It had huge Tank battles every frame, in fact the war was one or lost based on them, was prety fun. I must say I have enjoyed your creation Tilt, plane choices aside it has been fun.

 Back to our regulary schedualed programing:):

      Well like I sad above I am not to shure how popular  totaly soft skined anything,guns, trucks,rocket launchers would be. At least with the Nashorn, or Priest, you would have simi survivable platform that you clould land.

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: hazed- on February 17, 2003, 12:51:46 PM

Ive said it before and ill say it again.

The germans throughout the entire western war (apart from very early on) pretty much fielded the best tanks of the war and I think AH should endevour to portray this aspect.

The sherman M3 and m4 would be the best tank to add for some simple reasons.

1) it would be good to see for ourselves the difference in combat ability the average alllied tank driver faced rather than getting a unrealistic late development model
2) If we add tanks even more capable in AP power than the PanzerIV the Tiger would become pretty much useless as 'the' choice of ride.Facing hundreds of 105mm shermans or wolverines or other heavy tanks the tigers advanced protection would be unappreciated.
3) As the damage model stands, ie panzers can quite easily kill tigers already! the sherman will probably be modeled with the capability to take out a tiger anyhow! :)

but seriously i think the Germans should always be able to field a tank of superior power and defensive armour because 9 times out of 10 thats exactly what happened in WW2. They fielded small numbers of incredibly good tanks that fought weak but numerous allied tanks. On average it took 10 shermans to kill a single tiger and this should damn well be reflected in any game that seeks to simulate the war.
If we start to add the top allied tanks before we add the common types we will get a totally wrong veiw of the battles we read about.The panzerIV will become unused, the tiger not worth the extra expense and then it will become an all allied land war.
What we need is a representation of the tank the germans were MOST LIKELY to face and that is without doubt the sherman.
Once we have that then by all means add the later better but more rare examples and of course perk them accordingly.
Id like to see the ground war become shermans vs panzerIV's with the odd rare and dangerous tiger thrown in in very small numbers.I dont want to see the panzerIV ignored in favour of a far better gunned allied non-perked ride and see no tigers because no one wants to lose one to a simple shot from a powerfull allied tank.It will be as bad as it is now, ie nothing but panzers and no 'feel' of the axis vs allied part of the ground war.

just my $500 :) 2c isnt enough :)

Title: New Vehicle
Post by: ZePolarBear on February 17, 2003, 04:01:30 PM

Tilt:


Steal the rocket lauchers off the PT boat for your truck 'o' plenty.  I like the idea, versatile and could last us a long time.


ZPB[/B]