Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Toad on May 06, 2003, 12:32:52 AM
-
OK, you know how a pilot can get wounded? You know how a bomber gunner can be killed/gun disabled?
How come brave pixel-men can stand in an open turret hatch and not get killed? I don't mind them manning their gun and shooting back but it seems to me that a lot more of them would get shredded than do now.
Case in point, a tiger at A13 tonite. He was sitting near a town and multiple fighters were making continuous passes trying clear the town. He shot down several with his pintle gun. Fine But shouldn't the guy manning the gun be extremely vulnerable? I think so. He should actually die as easy as a paratrooper scampering for the map room. But they don't.
Secondarily, I know armor is pretty well bullet proof against aircraft projectile weapons but it sure seems like the .30 pintle guns are extremely deadly to aircraft. I think that should be looked into as well.
Thank you, and good night.
-
Would be cool if there was a command to unbutton your tank (doors open?), to allow it to fire the pintle gun and get better views while driving. While unbuttoned, it'd be more vulnerable to small projectiles... strafing could kill the commander (top MG gunner), and possibly the driver.
And if you buttoned up to increase survivability in combat, you'd lose most of your visability.
-
it is GOOD to vent.
;)
-
Talking of buttoned up, you know you can already look through the drivers hatch on Ostys and Panzers? Ample use of the Page Up button and your kneck grows about 5 feet.
-
Speaking of which:
My understanding is that the armored turret sites of the Ostys fold down and act as a platform for the gun crew when the gun is in action. Similarly the M3 gun crew should be almost completely exposed to aircraft fire.
Vehicles in AH seem to always get the advantages of having exposed crew members (i.e. being able to fire AA weapons), without having these crew members be extremely vulnerable. It seems to me that vehicle AA crews should die much more easily in this game that they do.
Hopefully this will change in AH2...
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
My understanding is that the armored turret sites of the Ostys fold down and act as a platform for the gun crew when the gun is in action. Similarly the M3 gun crew should be almost completely exposed to aircraft fire.
You're thinking of the 3.7cm FlaK auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen IV (Sf) SdKfz 161/3 'Möbelwagen', which had a square slab-sided superstructure which had to be folded down for the gun to be used:
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/mobel_1.jpg)
The flakpanzer modelled in the game is the 3.7cm Flak 43 auf Sfl PzKpfw IV 'Ostwind', which had a polygonal turret built around the gun mounting that rotated with the gun, providing splinter protection for the crew while operating the gun.
-
Perhaps making it much, much easier to knock out the pintle gun would solve this problem. That might be something that is easily adjusted.
The more desirable solution would be tarmac's, but there's no chance of that until AH2.
MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33
-
Making it easy to kill a pintle gunner would mean that pretty much all GVs have no defense against low flying aircraft. Now if the gunner had the option to be inside the tank with the hatch closed (and safe) or be up top manning the gun (and therefore vulnerable) then......well that's more something for AH2 cos GVs would have to be re-done.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Just make all hand held guns vibrate and shake, including buff guns.
Let's see how easy it is to damage/kill a plane with the pintle guns by landing hits from 1.2k out... all concentrated on a pin-point area of the radiator/cockpit/oil coolers, or rip out the entire tail structure... when the guns shakes around like it is supposed to.
A good benchmark system would be the ones used in military FPS games - such as Rainbow6 or Rogue Spear series.
When you hold the trigger down and just empty the clip, the longer you hold down that trigger, the bigger the shakes and oscilations become - resulting in incredibly scattering bullets.
Now, a pintle gun, which is mounted and held by two hands, won't exactly be like automatic rifles.. but still, I think it's worth a shot for satisfying both parties on this debate.
-
HTC has provided us with an excellent game. We have the choice to fly bombers, or fighters as jabo bombers or simply as lite fighters. We have troop delivery missions to fly by C47, or by surface in the M3. We even have GVs, boats, field guns, and can join a bomber aircraft as a gunner. I have flown ALL these types of mission. However, it seems that some fly only a subset - the fighters, and do not appreciate the difficulties of the other types of mission.
Clearly, this is a GAME and gaming concessions are needed in this GAME. We need to have all usable aircraft instruments visible on a flat screen, with the result that the cockpits do not accurately resemble those of the real WW2 planes. Fair enough, and we do not hear complaints about it. As to the pintle gun on the PNZR and TIGR, it's there as a defence, and also can be used against troops that are running towards the tower or troops that have been dropped by a newbie goon.
Why should the fight guys have an issue with the pintle? If they know it hurts, they can keep away from it - after all, GVs are only for hitting strategic targets and other GVs.
I fully agree with Swoop. Without the pintle, the PNZR and TIGR would be defenceless against low flying aircraft in this GAME. I don't know if PNZR tanks ever had to engage fighters in the real WW2, and whether the pintle gun was used in any such engagement. But it doesn't matter. This is a game. The pintle gun offers only a limited field of coverage both horizontally and vertically, and even as things stand right now cannot be brought to bear upon a target directly overhead. If an aircraft obliges the PNZR/TIGR pilot by flying low and straight at him, a long sustained burst will disable the aircraft in some way.
Are airaraft pilots afraid of the pintle? No. I submit two short films for your consideration. In both, you will see a low flying aircraft making repeated passes on one of more GVs. In the pintlekill.ahf film, an A20 attacks not one but TWO PNZRs sitting side by side. After repeated passes, not all shown on my film, one PNZR succeeds in doing enough damage by pintle to destroy the aircraft. In the 110bounce.ahf film, a 110 bounces me repeatedly, and seems unconcerned by my pintle. I landed at least three hits on it with no tangible result, so it's not the one-ping killer that some fighter pilots might think it is.
It's quite rare to get pintle kills, and those that do happen are usually as a result of an overambitious fighter pilot. If the pintle is weakened, this will be more sop to the Quickfix tribe. More choices for them (they can be totally stupid and come in low and slow, blazing away with a 30mm cannon) and less choice for the would be PNZR driver, who will become defenceless against aircraft, and consigned to irrelevance, because we all know what's going to happen once the dweebs find out they can fly a low and slow N1K into the face of a PNZR. :rolleyes:
Leave it alone. It ain't broke, so don't fix it.
These GV films are best viewed in the FIXED view point.
Aircraft attacking GV films (http://www.alanadsl.legend.yorks.com/pintle.zip)
-
Twist, twist, twist. :D
Change? Only with respect to accurate modeling. I personally believe the .30 rifle caliber MG on the pintle is too lethal to aircraft structures.
Again, I suggest a filmed controlled test. We'll shoot a pintle gun at a parked IL2, range 600 yards, in bursts and see what occurs.
We'll then fly the IL2 on autopilot and have a Hurri I shoot at it with 8 rifle caliber guns, convergence at 600, at the same range and see what damage occurs.
If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
Want to test it out?
It's a modeling issue, not a gameplay issue. Although I can see where you believe your only hope is to frame it as gameplay.
Twist, twist, twist. :D
-
OK, Chubby Checker. :D
As I said, it's a gaming issue. And if the pintle is dumbed down, Doofus-Dweebius is going to have a field day. I can see it now - low Nikkies, circling around PNZRs with impunity. I have already supplied films, which clearly demonstrate that the two pilots featured (and the films were taken in back to back sorties) sees the pintle as no threat. Its only use against aircraft is a low tracking shot in which the trajectory does not vary. I shot a P47 like that this week, but it took a sustained burst of at least three seconds.
Come on Bufo. You've got your way with fuel porker, you've got your close airfields, you've got rid of all those "superfluous" vehicle fields - what more do you want? How much easier do things have to be before you're satisfied?
Do me a favour. Try driving a PNZR for a week and see how many pintle kills you get. I bet you wouldn't even get 4. But let me pre-empt you by saying that I know you don't have the attention span to do that. So you don't really know how hard it is to get kills with the pintle. If you did, you wouldn't whine. Yeah, selective realism, when it suits.
Put up, or shut up.
-
Well then, I guess you would support giving each HE shell from the main gun of the Panzer the equivalent leathality of 2000 pound bomb, right? On the theory that it's a gameplay concession to the difficult job of the tankers?
Jeez, you make my day sometimes. I needed some comic relief today for certain!
The more heavily armored GV's are essentially immune to damage from aircraft MG in the places that they should be.
Historically, armor hid from air as much as possible. Because armor's anti-air capability was basically nil using a pintle gun. And while air couldn't destroy armor with MG, they certainly could do damage with bombs, rockets and, to a far lesser extent, MG fire in vulnerable areas.
Further, anyone manning a pintle gun against aircraft was an EXTREMELY soft target.
Now, which of these historical truths do you wish to change for gameplay and do you wish to start making further gameplay concessions to ease the difficult jobs.
For example, it's a difficult task to get a Hurri 1 into position to kill on an La-7 but it happens. So can we give the Hurri the leathality of 20mm's instead of .303 in recognition of the "difficult task"?
:D
BTW, if you're keeping up on fuel, NB said it was a code issue that HT would have to decide on. To date, I haven't seen that change announced. However, I have seen just about everyone agree that there should be better balance between the effort to degrade fuel and to upgrade fuel. Except you of course. So I didn't "get my way" on fuel, it's just that almost no one agrees with you. That's what upsets you, I guess.
Airfields to vehicle fields? Gee, Beet1e, you never answered in the other thread. Now folks will have the choice of vehicles OR aircraft at a changed field. That's MORE choice. Weren't you just touting yourself as the champion of choice? What happened?
And note again, NOTHING I've suggested really impacts your style of play. Strat, in all it's glory remains essentially unchanged. The fuel issue hasn't changed a bit. You can still plan mighty missions to capture the new fields or the changed V-fields... in fact, there's more to capture with your strateegery! Surely you must love that, eh?
No, I won't drive a gv. It's perhaps the most boring thing in AH for me.
Selective realism? Do you read what you write? You have to be the absolute King of selective realism, particularly with your incredible defense of a mis-modeled pintle gun and the bulletproof pixel hero that mans it.
Again, let's go film it. Put up or shut up.
But hey, thanks again for the comic relief!
-
I say leave things as they are and let HTC be in charge of game development. Certain concessions ARE needed, hence the perk point system, and the need to perk certain planes to stop the arena becoming choked with them - F4U-1C, for example.
No, I won't drive a gv. It's perhaps the most boring thing in AH for me.
Hehe, "I've never tried it because I don't like it". :D And because GV ops are not important to you, you don't see why they should be important to anyone else.
Were your pintle change to be implemented, what changes to arena gameplay do you anticipate, and what is it you really want? The only one to suffer a pintle death at the moment is the flat trajectory dweeb. And he deserves what he gets.
The lethality of the tank rounds is fine, thanks. Glad I made your day!
-
I agreee with you, beet1e. I do a lot of GV work, and enjoy it. I also get killed in GVs by aircraft. Sometimes I shoot one down. Frankly, it bugs me when aircraft come to tank town and mess up my GV fights. But, oh well...
I think a lot of the gameplay issues seen by some people as "damaging" the game are an attempt by the developers to make up for the lack of numbers we have here in the game. Think about it. A typical WW2 fighter sweep would include 60 or more planes. A bombing mission, 700 bombers escorted by 100 fighters. Heck, we don't even have that many players on all three sides on at one time. So, it's hard to duplicate the experience and the damage effects afforded by mass fire and formations.
Thus, to make the game move along, they give us 8MM (not .30 cal, guys, it's a GERMAN tank) MG34s (or is it MG42) that are perhaps a bit more effective than in real life. It all balances, since a smart Jabo pilot would not try to take out a tank with his cannons, according to some experts that have posted here. I do know that a lot of fighters got shot down by ground fire in the real world of WW2. Are we in balance? I think so, since it sure seems to me that it is very unrealistic to allow a P-51 to take out the turret on my panzer with .50 cal machine guns--that happened last night.
Let's just play the game the way it is, and quit the moaning.
-
AFAIK, HTC has been pretty solid on fixing broken modeling when it can be demonstrated as incorrect.
The perk system, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with incorrect modeling but how typical of you to twist it that way.
I didn't say I have never driven a GV. Au contraire; I said I'd not drive them again to placate your need to make folks try things YOU think they should try. I've driven them. I've captured bases, I've resupplied, I've had "tank battles". Been there, done that, bores me to tears, ain't goin' back.
As always, you totally miss the point. I don't see GV ops as important in my playing profile. However, I don't care at all if YOU or anyone else chooses to drive GV's a little, some or quite a lot.
Use your playing time the way you see fit. Please allow me the same courtesy.
If the pintle gun change were implemented, what I would expect is.... correct modeling and player use accordingly. Historically, armor did not like to be under air attack. A pintle gun alone was of little if any value as "air defense". A man standing in an open turret manning his pintle gun while under determined air attack would most likely be killed in short order while doing little if any damage to the attackers with his .30 rifle caliber machine gun.
I'm guessing that those results would be true in the MA.
Tanks, as a result, would have to be more aware of bomb and rocket attacks but the should and probably would still shrug off attacks using only MG unless hit repeated in the few vulnerable areas.
That's what I'd expect from correct modeling. It really has nothing to do with gameplay; it's just trying to make the guns and FM's as historically correct as is reasonably possible.
BTW, I also think that GV's shouldn't be able to roll down hills at speeds exceeding their historically correct max downhill speed. I'm pretty sure that 90+ mph was impossible to survive for almost all the stuff modeled in that game. To me, that's akin to allowing a Zero to dive at Mach 2.
But I'm guessing you find it an acceptable "gameplay" concession?
:D
-
You are correct. 8mm is .32 caliber. I don't actually know what gun was on which tank. Nor do I care. Nonetheless, it's still a rifle caliber MG, not heavy MG round.
There's the difference. You're bugged by aircraft messing up your GV fights. I'm not bugged by GV's messing up A2A battles because it's part of the game. Players do what players want to do. All I'm asking is that all the hardware be modeled as accurately as possible. The GV guys had a point a while back that aircraft guns were too effective against GV's. It got fixed. I'm saying the same thing about the pintle gun. It'll get fixed, or not. It's not a show stopper.. it's just something that's wrong.
Historic? Tour 39: The Panzer IV H has 1201 kills and has been killed 883 times against the P-51D.
Wow. Say where are all those WW2 stories, books and official records of the tank drivers that won the Knights Cross with Swords for killing aircraft with a pintle gun. Must have been hundreds and hundreds of tank "aces".
BTW, I think you'll find that incorrect modeling is a primary concern of most players.
Gameplay is opinion. Data is not.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Beet1e is da man. You are correct.
Awwww :) Wow. Say where are all those WW2 stories, books and official records of the tank drivers that won the Knights Cross with Swords for killing aircraft with a pintle gun. Must have been hundreds and hundreds of tank "aces".
The reason you can't find them, Mr. Toad, is because they're hidden away along with the accounts of P51 drivers attacking Tanks. Hehe, I met the former P51 ace Punchy Powell at the WB PAC-NW minicon in 2001. I should have asked him. He was dealing mainly with 190s and 109s - especially 109s. Oddly enough, he made no mention of Tank attacks... Historic? Tour 39: The Panzer IV H has 1201 kills and has been killed 883 times against the P-51D.
Your analysis is flawed. You have failed to take account of the AH scoring system, and of Doofus-Dweebius. OK, maybe you haven't sat in a tank standing guard at a V-base. I have. And many times I've seen a suicide P51 come diving in, releasing his bombs 200' above the VH and using his own plane to augment the explosion. And guess what? The nearest GV gets a prox kill. It happens a lot. The only other way a P51 can be killed by a PNZR is if it gets low enough to come within pintle range - How often did that happen in WW2? :rolleyes: Yes, DD skews the stats - and the game. Nothing that AH2/Mission Arena won't take care of. :D
Answer my question, Mr. Toad: Were the pintle to be dumbed down at your suggestion, how do you foresee gameplay changing, and what effect would you like your proposed change to have?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Case in point, a tiger at A13 tonite. He was sitting near a town and multiple fighters were making continuous passes trying clear the town. He shot down several with his pintle gun. Fine But shouldn't the guy manning the gun be extremely vulnerable? I think so. He should actually die as easy as a paratrooper scampering for the map room. But they don't.
Maybe it's because there aren't any people in Ah, when you see someone shooting with a tiger you can't see shooting :rolleyes:
but yes, I do agree with you, gunners should be more funerable
-
Here you go, Beet1e. Somehow you missed this.
"If the pintle gun change were implemented, what I would expect is.... correct modeling and player use accordingly. Historically, armor did not like to be under air attack. A pintle gun alone was of little if any value as "air defense". A man standing in an open turret manning his pintle gun while under determined air attack would most likely be killed in short order while doing little if any damage to the attackers with his .30 rifle caliber machine gun.
I'm guessing that those results would be true in the MA.
Tanks, as a result, would have to be more aware of bomb and rocket attacks but the should and probably would still shrug off attacks using only MG unless hit repeated in the few vulnerable areas.
That's what I'd expect from correct modeling. It really has nothing to do with gameplay; it's just trying to make the guns and FM's as historically correct as is reasonably possible."
-
As I have said repeatedly, the only planes that are going to get killed by pintle are those who are stupid enough to attempt a low pass, thereby presenting a sustained tracking shot at constant trajectory. They deserve to die. In addition to the prox kills I mentioned above, there are going to be those dweebs who auger when attempting to strafe a PNZR. Those deaths combine to account for a much higher proportion of the total than pintle deaths.
-
So you are saying you are NOT in favor of accurate gun modeling.
OK.
-
Mr. Toad. I said what I said, and I was very careful in what I said. :D If the pintle is dumbed down, Doofus-Dweebius will up a N1K with the 30mm cannon to try to disable the main turret. He will know that he has the luxury of making a low and slow pass with constant trajectory. Leave the pintle alone. I'll support a realistic pintle when you support realistic gameplay. Which doesn't look like being anytime soon. Let's wait till AH2 to fix the pintle!
-
I agree toad, and I've squeaked about it before .
The problem with the airgard mg's on tanks is, I think, that they share the same damage model as the whole turret. Also testing it offline the pintle mounted mg's seem to have the same dispersion density as fixed mg's .
That's why the tiger tank may be the best AA platform in the game .
-
Beet1e, there has always been an attempt to draw a distinct line between realistic modeling and gameplay of any sort.
It's not a case of "dumbing down" as you would like to twist it. It's a case of accurate modeling.
HTC, HT, Pyro et al have always said they strive for realistic modeling of weapons and FM. The have also always said that gameplay is variable and NOT based on "reality".
Besides, Mr. Realistic Gameplay, it's simple fact that armor sought to hide from air attack. To the point that the Germans were moving armor mostly at night to avoid it towards the end of the war. Seems this change would make things more realistic. Armor would try to avoid air attack... historically and realistically correct gameplay.
So, you're way out in left field, as ususal and pretty much all alone it seems.
Toodle.
-
Agree totally Suave!
-
Way out to left field? Not likely, in my case. I'm left handed at sports with bats which require a swing - baseball, cricket, golf - even chopping wood...
And I am not alone, not that THAT matters. I am in agreement with Swoop, up above.
It's not impossible to kill a PNZR by legitimate means - by dropping a 1000# egg on it. That's what I do. But of course, I have a longer attention span than most, which I developed from years of playing Chess. Many AHers cannot even stay focussed to climb to 5K :rolleyes: and want nothing to do with dropping bombs. They might want "someone else" to do it. That's why in AH we hear so many cries like "someone get a Goon", "someone kill the VH", "someone hit that church in the town", and folks who go surfing the web during that climb to 5K.
Well let's look at Mr. Toad's quest for accurate modelling. I have just checked his Modometer, and it's in the SELECTIVE position. If you want everything accurately modelled, does this mean we must all go through engine start procedures like priming fuel, setting mixture, warming up, checking magnetos, recycling the variable pitch prop during power checks etc. etc. etc.? I bet you don't want THAT part to be accurately modelled. No of course not. Point and click is much easier. How about we all have a large wheel attached to our PC towers so we can emulate the hand cranking of the landing gear to emulate gear transit failure?
I say again, the ONLY people who are threatened by the pintle gun as it now stands, and would benefit from any dumbing down, are those dweebs who have attempted to strafe a PNZR/TIGR. Look at my films, FFS. You'll see aircraft making repeated passes over tanks, trying to shoot them - LOL - TOTALLY unperturbed about the pintle gunners. As this was not a real life scenario, I can't see why concessions should now be made - to encourage Doofus Dweebius. The A20 in one of my films took the pintle gamble and lost. We KNOW what's going to happen if the pintle is dumbed down. - Repeated N1K passes with 30mm to shoot out the main turret. That's what you want, isn't it? Condemn GVs to irrelevance?
Don't change the pintle! No more concessions to Doofus Dweebius!
Pip.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
...Don't change the pintle! No more concessions to Doofus Dweebius!...
If the pintle gun isn't modeled accurately it is a concession to "Doofus Dweebius".
-
troops impervious to explosive at their feet.
-
Originally posted by moot
troops impervious to explosive at their feet.
In the map room they will find their seat.
-
Think about it.
Unless you model random mechanical failure, checking the magnetos has nothing whatsoever to do with playing.
Gun modeling ALWAYS has something to do with playing and HTC has always striven for accuracy in FM and ballistic modeling.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Think about it.
Unless you model random mechanical failure, checking the magnetos has nothing whatsoever to do with playing.
Gun modeling ALWAYS has something to do with playing and HTC has always striven for accuracy in FM and ballistic modeling.
Mr. T, I don't disagree - I don't want all that magneto checking, mixture setting nonsense - in a GAME that is played from a keyboard. Our "random mechanical failures" take the form of failures in the domestic electricity supply, disconnections, Lost UDP - transferring to TCP etc.
But I do feel that people often call for changes, in order to alter gameplay they don't like. Eg. increasing fuel bowser "hardness". Whenever I see a thread in which changes of "hardness" are proposed, it's usually to alter gameplay. If I may for a moment resurrect an old topic, the suicide fuel porker can have a devastating effect on an enemy field. And people start calling for the fuel tank "hardness" to be increased. Why? I can think of no better reason than the fact that they don't like having their fuel porked. And as OIO pointed out, it would seem perfectly legitimate for a hail of .50 cals to bust up a fuel tank and cause it to explode.
-
Beet1e, don't be deliberately obtuse ok? It's a tiresome act and it's causing me to lose any respect I have left for you.
Just some friendly words of advice, ok?
I haven't said a word about altering the pintle gun for gameplay reasons. I have said it is incorrectly modeled. I believe you know it is as well and have intimated as much in this thread. So the discussion is about accurate modeling. Period.
If accurate modeling has an "effect" on gameplay, so be it. I think you find nearly everyone here is in favor of correct FM, ballistic and other verifiable data related factors. I can't think of anyone that truly wants these factors "fudged" for gameplay.
It's the same as if we had a P-40 that climbed at 6000 fpm. Nobody wants that, not even the P-40 fans, because it simply isn't correct.
Armor hid from air as much as possible because armor was vulnerable to air and a pintle gun was no defense.
If anything should be done, the pintle should be modeled correctly and the AH "world" should provide more places for armor to hide, similar to what they had/used in the war.
Ta.
-
I don't know, Toad. I can see your side of the discussion, and also the other side. I guess it could go either way, as far as I am concerned. I do think that tanks are over-vulnerable to air attack, not necessarily because of modeling, but due to gameplay issues--air cover is hard to find, sometimes. Especially when using GVs to attack airfields in the MA. But that's GAMEPLAY.
I think I have been destroyed by aircraft more than I have destroyed aircraft. I'm not bothered by that. It can be frustrating to get bombed by a jabo when I'm trying to lay my gun on a target, but what the heck?? If the game were too one-sided, I wouldn't enjoy it. I gave up arcade games a long time ago.
Don't think that I feel you are "interfering" with my play when you introduce a plane into a GV battle. It adds to the adrenaline level. I play for the challenge. It's challenging to shoot you down and survive the experience. I may cuss you a little bit when you get me. Nothing personal.
-
Here's what we do. Correct the pintle gun model, if it can be shown to be incorrect. Get rid of the icons on GVs, except friendlies, so GVs are harder to see. Make it impossible for the aircraft to disable clutter, so GVs can hide under trees and stuff.
Now my GV is hard for you to find, and if you find me, maybe I can shoot you down, maybe I can't.
Peace??
-
Obviously, from all my previous posts here, I would have no problem with that. However, you still have to have a way to tell a friendly from an enemy, even in GV's.
-
I drive GV's a lot. I think the current gun setup is ok. It's absolutely ridiculous though, that a niki can take out both tracks, the main gun and the pintle gun in a single pass with cannons, regardless of vehicle type (except maybe the tiger on occasion).
I understand Toad's point, but to be fair, if this were to be, then GV's need to be afforded the ability to hide under cover, such as trees, etc. Since foliage is now part of the "ground clutter" and can be turned off, GV's are wide open and can not hide at all. The guns as they are are, IMHO fair compensation.
I rarely ever get a pintle kill on an aircraft, it takes too many bullets and a good pilot can usually disable them before I can kill his plane...but then again, there are a lot of not-so-smart pilots that will head on a GV at low alt.
-
Warp, it may be that the GV damage model is still too soft with respect to aircraft guns. If so, THAT would need to be fixed.
In the same way that an "overmodeled" pintle gun would need to be fixed.
The GV's do need a place to hide, so THAT needs to be fixed.
But an incorrectly modeled gun or FM has, to my knowledge, never been proposed or tolerated when discovered by HTC. And certainly not for a gameplay advantage.
As I said, Hurri I's have a tough time in the game too. They can't run and they can't hide either. Do their .303's get a boost? I don't think so.
I'd rather see us fix what needs fixin' correctly than to start artificially tweaking.
-
Mr. Toad said
I haven't said a word about altering the pintle gun for gameplay reasons.
You didn't have to. But the gameplay reasons still exist. I was getting ready to think what to say about this, but AKWarp has delivered an excellent reply, and I agree with him 110%. Your point about the Hurri-1 is good though, but there are two things I could say about that. [list=1]- There are many other planes to fly, but only a limited number of GVs.
- The Hurri-1 was not designed to be used in 1945. By that time it was hopelessly outclassed by 109G/190 etc. Of course, were we to have an RPS, then the Hurri-1 would fare just fine in the early part of the war, as indeed it did in RL. But oh! We can't have an RPS - limiting people's choices etc. We wouldn't want that aspect of realism to be included now, would we? :rolleyes:
My prediction for what will happen if pintle effectiveness is reduced, and vulnerability is increased is exactly what AKWarp tells us is already happening. The N1K GV vulchers will be out in force.
It is rare to get a pintle kill. I have had only 2-3 three in all the time I've been playing AH. And all those have been when an aircraft has really persisted with low passes at a constant trajectory relative to my GV. In other words, he was asking for it.
-
Come now, you just can't be as thick as a brick, despite how you continue to misrepresent what I'm saying.
"My prediction for what will happen if pintle effectiveness is reduced, and vulnerability is increased is exactly what AKWarp tells us is already happening. The N1K GV vulchers will be out in force."
The problem here is possibly two fold:
1. The GV's need cover to hide in from airpower, as they historically did.
2. (Possibly) GV armor needs more tweaking to make it more historically correct, more protection against aircraft guns.
So your solution is to artificially increase the effectiveness of the pintle gun? :)
As to the rest.........
"only a limited number of GVs."
You can't seriously offer this as a reason to incorrectly model the ballistics of a gun. So anything limited in number should get a cheat code? I'm very close to ROFL......
"The Hurri-1 was not designed to be used in 1945."
Really? I'm pretty sure tanks were not designed to suppress air power either. The pintle gun mounted as "AA defense" is more truly just a gesture made at reassuring the tank crew. As I said, who'd want to stand in an open turret manning that thing when .50's or 20mm were raining down all over and around the tank?
Beyond that though.. thanks for stepping up and proving Ack-Ack right in the other thread by once again advocating an RPS.
Now I AM ROFL!
-
Mr. Toad. :)
HTC set the pintle ballistics. Given the amount of work they have in their in tray right now, I can't see them sitting down to model ground cover against air attacks. I didn't say increase the power of the pintle. I'm saying leave things alone for the time being. Besides, it seems entirely viable that the pintle gun could kill the pilot of a plane making a long slow pass.
It's not a piece of cheat code. It is a minor matter, but I don't think we need pintle revisions until we're ready for ground cover revisions as described by AKWarp, above. One outstanding change compensates for the other. Dead simple. Now I KNOW you're not thick as a brick, so I won't even ask if you get it now. ;)
-
Accuracy first, features second.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Accuracy first, features second.
Whatever.
Toodle-Pip.