GV vs AC fun

[Xavier]

Short version: I think the GV/AC play is not balanced, and would be much more fun for both ground vehicles and aircraft if some steps were taken  .

Long version: the above plus some argumentation and personal opinions.


I play both GVs and aircraft, anti-tank aircraft too. Exploring both worlds let see some things that I consider to be damaging the gameplay.

1. Indestructible trees. You have a tank on your sights, he's moving, you try a tracking shot. Too bad, the shell touches the edge of a nearby tree and explodes. Personally, I think that only the tree trunk should stop your shells.

2. GV icon range. I see this as completely unfair, seeing how GVs have a commander view and can see an aircraft's range up to 6K. It really does become an issue when both AA platforms (wirbel and osti) have 1.5K+ range.

3. Commander position. I have no problem with this position as it is, but I don't think a player should be able to shoot from it. It's gamey enough that you can both aim and drive from this position, simultaneously and instantaneously. Also, most maingunned aircraft are shot from this position.

4. Lack of F3 view on Il-2 and Ju-87G2. I can understand it in the Hurri IID, but on those? They can only be used on tankbusting and little else, so why shouldn't they have it?

5. Lack of tank-busting aircraft. We have a huge variety of fighters and bombers, while the tank busting airplanes are only represented by 3 examples. Why? The Hs-129 would be a nice addition, but it'd be even easier to give our Bf-110G2 the Bk 3.7 pack.


Right now we have tank-busting aircraft that are absolutely unable to perform their historical roles and attack approaches. That is caused by a 1K icon range for GVs, a commander position making maingunning easier and AA platforms unidentified until you're well within gun range. Until some things change, those three aircraft will remain hangar queens and we'll keep seeing Lancstukas  .

Let the games begin! 

[Karnak]

Il-2s don't seem to actually be hangar queens....

[Tinkles]

Short version: I think the GV/AC play is not balanced, and would be much more fun for both ground vehicles and aircraft if some steps were taken  .

Long version: the above plus some argumentation and personal opinions.


I play both GVs and aircraft, anti-tank aircraft too. Exploring both worlds let see some things that I consider to be damaging the gameplay.

1. Indestructible trees. You have a tank on your sights, he's moving, you try a tracking shot. Too bad, the shell touches the edge of a nearby tree and explodes. Personally, I think that only the tree trunk should stop your shells.

2. GV icon range. I see this as completely unfair, seeing how GVs have a commander view and can see an aircraft's range up to 6K. It really does become an issue when both AA platforms (wirbel and osti) have 1.5K+ range.

3. Commander position. I have no problem with this position as it is, but I don't think a player should be able to shoot from it. It's gamey enough that you can both aim and drive from this position, simultaneously and instantaneously. Also, most maingunned aircraft are shot from this position.

4. Lack of F3 view on Il-2 and Ju-87G2. I can understand it in the Hurri IID, but on those? They can only be used on tankbusting and little else, so why shouldn't they have it?

5. Lack of tank-busting aircraft. We have a huge variety of fighters and bombers, while the tank busting airplanes are only represented by 3 examples. Why? The Hs-129 would be a nice addition, but it'd be even easier to give our Bf-110G2 the Bk 3.7 pack.


Right now we have tank-busting aircraft that are absolutely unable to perform their historical roles and attack approaches. That is caused by a 1K icon range for GVs, a commander position making maingunning easier and AA platforms unidentified until you're well within gun range. Until some things change, those three aircraft will remain hangar queens and we'll keep seeing Lancstukas  .

Let the games begin! 

#1 Skuzzy already said that it would be too much information for everyone to process for that to happen. I was one of the ones who requested the same thing, and while I still support it, I understand the current limitations as to why it isn't here.

#2 My solution for this was 3k icon range (while in GV) for planes.

#3 Debatable.

#4  They are only used as tankbusting (for the most part) BECAUSE they don't have those F3 views.

#5 Wouldn't mind seeing that, but have patience.. they are workin on something big

[lunatic1]

i've erased message--your wish have at

[Xavier]

#4  They are only used as tankbusting (for the most part) BECAUSE they don't have those F3 views.

This is what I don't get. Why? How else would they be used if they had F3?

planes that carry bombs are tank busting aircraft.

And all planes with machine guns are fighters?

don't hit the trees

 

wirbs-osti's-m16's still have to hit the plane

The point stands. You don't know it's an AA platform until you're 1K out, within guns range. He saw you at 6K.

who else is gonna fire the guns

What about having only the gunner do it? You know, like they used to.

most tanks have a top turret machine gun for shootin troops and tanks and aircraft

And I think that should be the only one the commander could use.

il2 used to have f3 mode-they took it away--to me f3 mode makes it to gamey-they should take it off the a-20 as well

The F3 is gamey, but a commander view that lets you aim and shoot the main gun isn't? 

they changed the gv icon range because it was too easy to drop bombs on gv's

Bombing GVs will always be easy.

i think you comment's is without merit.--but my opinion only

I also think that yours has no merit. But, of course, it's just my opinion.

[Tilt]

1. Indestructible trees. You have a tank on your sights, he's moving, you try a tracking shot. Too bad, the shell touches the edge of a nearby tree and explodes. Personally, I think that only the tree trunk should stop your shells.

agreed

2. GV icon range. I see this as completely unfair, seeing how GVs have a commander view and can see an aircraft's range up to 6K. It really does become an issue when both AA platforms (wirbel and osti) have 1.5K+ range.

I like the AC to Gv icon range. I wish it were also applied to freindly AC to Gv icons

3. Commander position. I have no problem with this position as it is, but I don't think a player should be able to shoot from it. It's gamey enough that you can both aim and drive from this position, simultaneously and instantaneously. Also, most maingunned aircraft are shot from this position.

disagree

4. Lack of F3 view on Il-2 and Ju-87G2. I can understand it in the Hurri IID, but on those? They can only be used on tankbusting and little else, so why shouldn't they have it?

disagree both are effective although the IL2 should be made uber with the PTAB

5. Lack of tank-busting aircraft. We have a huge variety of fighters and bombers, while the tank busting airplanes are only represented by 3 examples. Why? The Hs-129 would be a nice addition, but it'd be even easier to give our Bf-110G2 the Bk 3.7 pack.

disagree we have the key tank busters

Until some things change, those three aircraft will remain hangar queens

disagree they are not hanger queens and indeed if the PTAB was added they would all perform well in their historical roles.

[Xavier]

disagree both are effective although the IL2 should be made uber with the PTAB
disagree they are not hanger queens and indeed if the PTAB was added they would all perform well in their historical roles.

In an Il-2 you'll need several passes and firing under 200 yards to stand a chance. In the Stuka you can one-shot some tanks if you come very, very low, hit the armor at a 90º angle and again under 200 yards. Meanwhile you're a slow target, moving straight towards the tank at low level. Knowing that you need several passes for every single tank, the chances of being maingunned are quite big.

Can you dive on a tank to hit the top armor? Yes, but then again it's a very dangerous manouver in those aircraft and as historically accurate as the lancstukas.

[lunatic1]

In an Il-2 you'll need several passes and firing under 200 yards to stand a chance. In the Stuka you can one-shot some tanks if you come very, very low, hit the armor at a 90º angle and again under 200 yards. Meanwhile you're a slow target, moving straight towards the tank at low level. Knowing that you need several passes for every single tank, the chances of being maingunned are quite big.

Can you dive on a tank to hit the top armor? Yes, but then again it's a very dangerous manouver in those aircraft and as historically accurate as the lancstukas.

erased message--your wish have at it

[Xavier]

there are players who can and do kill gv's in 1 pass in a il2-just becasue you can't doesent mean it can't be done.
p-51d is a fighter it has six .50cal machine guns--it also can carry 2 1000 pound bombs and 6 rockets..if a plane can't carry bombs than its usally considered a fighter only

And not all planes that carry bombs are tankbusters. I won't even discuss this.

Yes, some GVs can be killed with a single pass in a Il-2. But in most cases (moving vehicle turning, tracking you with the turret) you can't make a shot square enough and close enough. Try one-passing a T-34, for example.

[lunatic1]

i use a p-51d to kill gv's-like you said nuff said

[Volron]

In an Il-2 you'll need several passes and firing under 200 yards to stand a chance. In the Stuka you can one-shot some tanks if you come very, very low, hit the armor at a 90º angle and again under 200 yards. Meanwhile you're a slow target, moving straight towards the tank at low level. Knowing that you need several passes for every single tank, the chances of being maingunned are quite big.

Can you dive on a tank to hit the top armor? Yes, but then again it's a very dangerous manouver in those aircraft and as historically accurate as the lancstukas.

Coming in from above is exceptionally easy, and has proven to be one of the easiest ways to knock out a tank for me, even in the B-25H.  This is with targets in trees or beside hills.  Also, you are hitting the wrong parts of the tank if it takes you several passes to knock out anything in the Il-2, exception being the Tiger and King Tiger with toughness factors for the T-34's.  The most ideal for me is from ABOVE and BEHIND.

When it comes to "main gunning" AC from a tank, I actually have most of my kills of AC from the gun site, not the commander view.  If I spot an AC coming for me soon enough, I'll bring the gun to bare then use the gun site to take my shot.  Though I have taken out AC from the commander view more than a couple of times, it's usually against ones that have closed to point blank range.

[BuckShot]

+1 x 5 for Xavier's wishes

[Xavier]

Coming in from above is exceptionally easy, and has proven to be one of the easiest ways to knock out a tank for me, even in the B-25H.  This is with targets in trees or beside hills.  Also, you are hitting the wrong parts of the tank if it takes you several passes to knock out anything in the Il-2, exception being the Tiger and King Tiger with toughness factors for the T-34's.  The most ideal for me is from ABOVE and BEHIND.

When it comes to "main gunning" AC from a tank, I actually have most of my kills of AC from the gun site, not the commander view.  If I spot an AC coming for me soon enough, I'll bring the gun to bare then use the gun site to take my shot.  Though I have taken out AC from the commander view more than a couple of times, it's usually against ones that have closed to point blank range.

Yes, hitting from above is better, but I wouldn't call it exceptionally easy against moving targets. And, as I said, it's absolutely historically inaccurate. Like dive bombing in a lancaster. In the Il-2 I don't bother shooting the sides unless it's a panzer, I always go for the rear. It's given me the best results.

I believe that the majority of players who main gun AC do it from the commander position, as it makes the job easier for a lot of people, specially tracking the target.

i use a p-51d to kill gv's-like you said nuff said

Using a very low level approach and shooting under 200 yards, just with guns? I'm sorry but I doubt you'll kill much GVs using that approach in a mustang.

[lunatic1]

i was gonna let this go----no man i drop bombs on gv's--although some playes have killed tanks with machine guns--diving down and hitting the hatch

[Xavier]

You said you kill GVs like I said...so I guessed you did it the way I mentioned, not by dive-bombing. My bad. Still doesn't make the P-51D a tank buster.