limit the tiger and tiger 2

[zippo]

Ridiculous. Tanks in this game are targets. Nothing more. We have an entirely new mode of "combat pilots" in this game that specialize in nothing more than bombing vehicles. Sitting on concrete is the solution to losing perks to dweebs. Simple.

This entire thread is nothing more than a whine about "defeated mudhens" (you call them bomb****s). If you want to kill a Tiger or Tiger II get behind him with an M18 Hellcat and pop him inside of 1.4k. Boom!

Whine defeated.

  I sort of agree with this.  The pilots who specialize in bombing the tanks can easily cost tankers a lot of perks at no risk to themselves. How many perked planes are doing the bombing?  And unless the plane does something foolish(flying low and straight at the tank when his gun will bear is kinda like flying straight up a gunned buff's 6),he gets to land a kill.  Some pilots here are lacking in ACM skills and bombing someone who can't really shoot back or maneuver is an easy way to get your name in lights.  I can't fly, but it's no big trick to bomb a tank. 

  In the B-29 example brought up earlier, the 29 has a fair chance of shooting the attacking plane down.  Not so for the tank.  He is pretty much screwed if the guy wants to bomb him...

 I think camping a spawn is bs.  Campers should expect to get bombed.

Concrete sitting is bs too....Maybe get rid of the tiger 2?  Seems they aren't used much in attacking, but again, the guy who ups a tiger away from a base usually loses those perks.
  You have a panzer, m4, t-34, panther, and a tiger sitting in a row.  Which one are the bombers going to go for first?   

[Tank-Ace]

I agree with Chalenge on this one.

How about this: Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, or that even limiting GV's in any way shape or form is a good idea, hop in a tank for a full tour, and drive as if your own proposals were already implemented.



If you think GV's shouldn't be able to land on concrete, drive into the hanger before you land.

If you think GV's should be forced to play a certian way, you play as if any and all restrictions you suggest were in place.

Up Tiger I's, Panther's, and Tiger II's in addition to the M4's and Panzers.


Come back at the end of the month, and tell us if you still think its a good idea. If you don't do it, well then even you clearly don't think actually helpful.

[Karnak]

I agree with Chalenge on this one.

How about this: Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, or that even limiting GV's in any way shape or form is a good idea, hop in a tank for a full tour, and drive as if your own proposals were already implemented.

No.  I don't like GVs and I didn't subscribe to play with them.  I intensely dislike the fact that Wirbelwinds are nigh impossible to kill, safe zone creaters for  cowards.  I am still ticked that Wirbelwinds are now able to kill me before I can even see them.

I don't bomb GVs, but GVs have a major negative impact on my enjoyment of the game.

[Tank-Ace]

Then don't go around proposing we put restrictions and limitations on GV's Karnak.


Really, its quite simple logic: You don't play GV's, which means you have little to no expieience on how things are from a tanker's perspective. Therefore, you are unqualified to suggest solutions that are fair to both sides, as you are simply ignorant of what works for the GV'ers.



I intensly dislike the fact that bombing is nigh impossible to defend against, easy kills for the skill-les.
I am ticked that aircraft are still able to kill me when I am PHYSICLY PREVENTED FROM RETALIATING.

I don't up wirbs, but bomb tards have a strong negative impact on my enjoyment of the game.



Karnak, we'll gladly agree to limitations on wirblewinds if you can solve the bombdweeb problem for us. Hell, we'll ask for killshooter to be disabled and start hunting our own wirbs if you can do that. But don't expect us to help solve your own personal problems, if you're unwilling to help us solve ours.

[Zoney]

Edit:keep your mouth shut Zoney, be nice.

[Karnak]

Karnak, we'll gladly agree to limitations on wirblewinds if you can solve the bombdweeb problem for us. Hell, we'll ask for killshooter to be disabled and start hunting our own wirbs if you can do that. But don't expect us to help solve your own personal problems, if you're unwilling to help us solve ours.

The stats say you don't have a problem other that wildly exaggerated claims of the kills of tanks by aircraft in the game.  Aircraft already have only a marginal effect on the tank game. 

[Tank-Ace]

By pure kills, yes. But even Davidwales knows that impact goes beyond simple kills.


Do aircraft make GV'ers more cautious by threat of attack? Yes
Do aircraft make perk GV's hang back, or not up, by threat of attack? BIG yes
Do aircraft report location of GV's to other GV'ers? Yes
Do aircraft destroy GV hangers, and guns? Yes
Do aircraft help inhibit offensive action with GV's, through threat of attack, and actual attack? Yes
Do aircraft help a GV offensive by killing the few braver perk GV'ers that venture off concrete? Yes
Do all those have an effect on the GV game? Yes.


Karnak, either you're making a very poor attempt at misdirection here, or you are entirely ignorant of what the game is like for a GV'er. I suspect its a combination of the two.

Aircraft should only die to non-AA vehicles when being shelled on take-off or landing, or when they are being not just dumb, but suicidally stupid. A-20's can avoid deaths to tanks by not trying to fly down their gun barrels. Tanks cannot do anything avoid deaths to A-20's without sitting on concrete or not upping.


You can either solve our bombdweeb problem for us, or solve the larger problem of tanks being unable to defefend themselves before piping in with your uninformed opinion. Untill then, you would do well to remember that your opinion IS uninformed, and that you are speaking from a possition of VERY little expirence.

[Chalenge]

The stats say you don't have a problem other that wildly exaggerated claims of the kills of tanks by aircraft in the game.  Aircraft already have only a marginal effect on the tank game. 

I would submit that the reason aircraft kill fewer vehicles than vehicles do is the symmetrical concept that aircraft kill more aircraft than vehicles do. It only makes sense why both are true. An aircraft must usually fly a distance to get to the vbases unless vehicles are attacking an airbase. You will probably also discover that tigers attacking airbases are relatively rare. The reason is... few people are stupid enough to take a tiger into a situation that is hopeless for a vehicle.

A tiger is best in a defensive posture. The main reason for this is agility and speed - neither of which the tiger has. Unless you accept that you cannot understand why a tiger would prefer to remain on concrete. A tiger is also better as long as it is moving and not in a fixed position. An aircraft in the area would usually force a tiger to move to concrete. Once it is on concrete the way to kill it is to surround it with multiple vehicles or force it to tower with a bomb.

I suspect what set this entire wish off was someone wanted to capture a field but couldnt because of all the tigers present - or perhaps a single tiger. So obviously its a situation of poor planning in that case. Either the base was never closed or not enough mudhens came along to force the tigers to tower. Personally I love to put a tiger on concrete and allow mudhens to waste their eggs trying to kill me. A20s are famous for using everything they have hoping one bomb will be the lucky one. Okay you drop four to eight bombs and I decide you win and tower. Oh - so sad you left the hangars up and now I have a fresh tiger.

Plan better next time.

[dirtdart]

Chalenge, despite the arrogance embedded in your comments (I am only 5'10" after all) I will respond.  The key error in your logic is "In Aces High". Any paradigm associated with this statment has not been tested with different rules/views.

Here is why.  It is very easy to say that "Tanks are just Targets", because indeed that is what they become because their are systems that are typically used a manner in which they were not design (take the lanc stuka).  If you take the airplane out of the question, for the sake of argument and just stick to tanks, how would they be used?

Yes, the Tigers would play critical roles in base defense.  To counter them you would need much higher numbers of lesser tanks, or equal tanks which have been projected via spawn to the battle.  Since we know the defender holds all the "gaming cards" quick resupply, quick towering, etc... then how can the gaming creators incentivize the use of tanks in an offensive role?  That is the question.

Since the discussion is to "limit the tigers", my comments are directed to "why."  Should there be fleets of Tigers on the field a la C-Hog, no.  But, there should be a reduced cost because of the greater risk on spawning an advanced system into the fight. 

On the my idea is sublime, I was being very sarcastic because this argument is not innovative at all.  Nasaying is typical BBs.  Come up with an original idea instead of just shooting everyones ideas down, that is a bit more chalenge ing. 

[Butcher]

The stats say you don't have a problem other that wildly exaggerated claims of the kills of tanks by aircraft in the game.  Aircraft already have only a marginal effect on the tank game. 

Anyone who claims bombs overly kill tanks is simply over exaggerating the truth, I can pull up a few tours where I landed over 3,000 kills in GV's I doubt I got even got bombed 50 times tops.

As for Wirbels, I enjoy the range reduction on GV views, it stops people from diving 6k out onto a tank which improves survivability some what but nothing special, if someones going to bomb you - you are going to get bombed regardless.

I keep a harddeck of 3k when flying anywhere around an enemy base because a few times I had my 262 smoked by the invisible wirbs.

[Spikes]

If you don't want GV's to land on concrete, then planes shouldn't be able to either. If GVs have to land in a hanger, planes do also. Just how it should go.

[zippo]

  People keep posting that planes don't kill many gv's........ Haven't figured it up lately, but
 
zippo
LW 135  460 deaths in gv's all types
114 of these were to aircraft all types(11 of these were to Lancs, B-17's, B-24's)
So, if my numbers are right, 24.78% of the time I upped a gv, a plane killed me.
1 time in 4.
 That made a major negative impact on my enjoyment of this game.  I don't think it's nearly as bad since the icon range change.
How many times has a gv shot down your low flying plane? 


 

[Karnak]

If you don't want GV's to land on concrete, then planes shouldn't be able to either. If GVs have to land in a hanger, planes do also. Just how it should go.

No.  GVs are vastly easier to drive to a particular spot on the ground that airplanes are.  Airplanes also don't sit on the runway killing the enemy and then tower out the moment their precious little skin is threatened. The GV players are getting totally out of hand in their demands to be coddled.

Having problems with airplanes?  Yeah, so did the VVS in 1941 and 1942 as did the Werhmacht and Imperial Japanese Army in 1943, 1944 and 1945.  Do what they couldn't and get some fighter cover.  If I see friendly GVs under air attack I happily give them some cover as I like shooting at airplanes.  Combined arms is the answer, not making aircraft unable to interact with GVs.

[zippo]

No.  GVs are vastly easier to drive to a particular spot on the ground that airplanes are.  Airplanes also don't sit on the runway killing the enemy and then tower out the moment their precious little skin is threatened. The GV players are getting totally out of hand in their demands to be coddled.

Having problems with airplanes?  Yeah, so did the VVS in 1941 and 1942 as did the Werhmacht and Imperial Japanese Army in 1943, 1944 and 1945.  Do what they couldn't and get some fighter cover.  If I see friendly GVs under air attack I happily give them some cover as I like shooting at airplanes.  Combined arms is the answer, not making aircraft unable to interact with GVs.

By interact you mean provide a target to bomb but don't shoot at the planes?  It's a GAME...In the real world, people were ASSIGNED to anti-aircraft units, and assigned to fly air cover.  Since this is a game, people pretty much play the way they want to.  Most would rather take a tank to a tank fight instead of a lightly armored wirble.  BTW, they are pretty easy to kill. 

[Karnak]

By interact you mean provide a target to bomb but don't shoot at the planes? 

Or shoot down the aircraft.  Stop acting like it is a one way street as it most assuredly is not.