Does anyone use mouse in other modes than mouse aim? I've tried "joystick" and it really doesn't make any sense to me. At the slightest nudge on the pitch it just goes into a spin that wont straighten out.
[QUOTE=Doom14;46329657]
us_m6a1[/QUOTE]
[B]YES.[/B]
[img]http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m6front.jpg[/img]
Remember, The M6 also has two guns.
Anybody want to play RB with American planes?
[T]http://i.imgur.com/6A2tdfr.jpg[/T]
like my 3rd ever serious realistic battle, and its for 5 kills.
am i gud yet guys???
No, A4 is undertiered, it's an A5 with better climb rate.
A4 is OP shit but for your 3rd ever in any 190 is a pretty good start imo
Yeah it's comically under-tiered right now (can't wait for that nerf gaijin!) but still, I'll happily take advantage :v:
[QUOTE=fskman;46331430]Yeah it's comically under-tiered right now (can't wait for that nerf gaijin!) but still, I'll happily take advantage :v:[/QUOTE]
It's not even the least undertiered thing at its rank, it's just simply impossible to kill for a lot of planes, and since it's almost exactly an A-5 it's a plane most people know how to fly to begin with. And an A-5 vs a Hurricane or an I-153 is rofl
Gonna take a break for bit, unlocked n1k2 and ki 84 otsu and half way done with j7w1.
[editline]25th October 2014[/editline]
Now i know what people mean when they talk about premium planes + premium account.
[editline]25th October 2014[/editline]
All in less than 10 hours.
Which one of you is icedtea?
[editline]26th October 2014[/editline]
Good game Icedtea:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/LUXa2ko.png[/IMG]
That would be me.
[QUOTE=Doom14;46329657]I really want to love the J7W, but I can't.
It looks beautiful, but it's got a negative-income repair. Even on some wins. Even on three kill losses.
It has quad 30mms, but the stock belts rarely register kills and there are still only 60RPG.
It dives like a bat out of hell, but paper airplanes have better energy retention.
It seems like it would be really agile, but turning often cuts off half, or more, of your speed.
I want to love it, but I can't. The Kitsuka is looking more appealing, and I definitely enjoyed the N1K more.
[editline]25th October 2014[/editline]
OH GOD, IT IS BEGINNING:
us_m46_patton
us_m47_patton_ii
us_m4a1_1942_sherman
us_m4a1_76w_sherman
us_m4a3e8_76w_sherman
us_m6a1[/QUOTE]
I'm surprised they're adding the M6 and I'm betting there's probably a lot of people on the officials forums butthurt about it like they were about the King Tiger with the 105mm and Panther II.
I'm just glad they didn't go with the US-UK Hybrid tree idea that some people have been suggesting on the official forums because the U.S and U.K had different approaches to tank design and doctrine.
[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;46333342]I'm suprised they're adding the M6 and I'm betting there's probably a lot of people on the officials forums butthurt about it like they were about the King Tiger with the 105mm and Panther II.
I'm just glad they didn't go with the US-UK Hybrid tree idea that some people have been suggesting on the official forums because the U.S and U.K had different approaches to tank design and doctrine.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes. American doctrine being "basically, we are replacing horses with this stuff" and the British dual doctrine of "well, boats come in fast variety and... well, if it's meant to support infantry, why would it go faster than the infantry itself, right?".
If they dip into built-but-not-fielded prototypes a bit, both American and British trees are going to be completely fine, it's Japan who gonna get shafted hard.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46333359]Ah yes. American doctrine being "basically, we are replacing horses with this stuff" and the British dual doctrine of "well, boats come in fast variety and... well, if it's meant to support infantry, why would it go faster than the infantry itself, right?".
If they dip into built-but-not-fielded prototypes a bit, both American and British trees are going to be completely fine, it's Japan who gonna get shafted hard.[/QUOTE]
I was actually referring to the tank destroyer doctrine(Tanks are for supporting infantry, TDs handle the tanks) that the U.S had for most of the war up until 1944 when the Pershing was finally green-lighted for service along with larger numbers of Shermans armed with 76mms.
But British Tank Doctrine and design was considered "sound" for the day it was developed as most nations followed similar doctrines at that time period(even Germany with the early Panzer IIIs and IVs). Also I wonder when the U.K tree comes if they're going to include french tanks in it because the B1 would be hilarious if it got a low BR with that 47mm gun and 75mm howitzer.
[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;46333372]I was actually referring to the tank destroyer doctrine(Tanks are for supporting infantry, TDs handle the tanks) that the U.S had for most of the war up until 1944 when the Pershing was finally green-lighted for service along with larger numbers of Shermans armed with 76mms.
But British Tank Doctrine was considered "sound" for the day it was developed as most nations followed similar doctrines at that time period.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, true. Also, dedicated TD line will be the biggest issue for Britain, in WoT, literally like 2 vehicles in the TD line saw actual service or I think were the only ones actually built? Besides, all the tortoise precursors would be brokenly overpowered in WT with the ~200mm all around. I really wonder what they gonna do about that.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46333377]Yeah, true. Also, dedicated TD line will be the biggest issue for Britain, in WoT, literally like 2 vehicles in the TD line saw actual service or I think were the only ones actually built? Besides, all the tortoise precursors would be brokenly overpowered in WT with the ~200mm all around. I really wonder what they gonna do about that.[/QUOTE]
Only British TDs I can think of are the Archer and the Achilles, which are the ones that saw service. Well they COULD include the Bren Carrier armed with a Boyes Anti-Tank rifle and the one armed with the 2pdr gun, they could also include an non-Achilles imported M10 along with the T48 57mm GMC(M3 Half-Track with a 2pdr gun)
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/2_pdr_Aust_ATG_carrier(AWM_134672).jpg[/IMG]
That's the Australian Universal Carrier w/ 2pdr gun.
The Boyes Carrier could be the Era 1 TD while the 2dpr Bren Carrier would be Era 2 followed by the T48 with the imported Wolverine at Era 3 followed by the Achilles and Archer at Era 4. But for Era 5, they'll probably going have to go with the Tortoise even though the purists on the official forums will shake with rage.
[QUOTE=Doom14;46329657][B]us_m47_patton_ii[/B][/QUOTE]
FUCK YEAH! Now I just wish I could stick Bundeswehr logos on it and it would be fucking awesome.
Killing Panthers is so satisfying in the ZUT-37.
Also bucket.
[QUOTE=Judqment8;46333663]FUCK YEAH! Now I just wish I could stick Bundeswehr logos on it and it would be fucking awesome.[/QUOTE]
Always wanted the M47 in World of Tanks ever since the M46 was introduced, mainly for the better sloped armor. Can't wait for the Americano branch now.
[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;46333342]I'm surprised they're adding the M6 and I'm betting there's probably a lot of people on the officials forums butthurt about it like they were about the King Tiger with the 105mm and Panther II.
I'm just glad they didn't go with the US-UK Hybrid tree idea that some people have been suggesting on the official forums because the U.S and U.K had different approaches to tank design and doctrine.[/QUOTE]
There shouldn't be any complaining about the M6, it's not actually a prototype it [B]was actually accepted into service, hence the M designation, they made 30 of them[/B]
it was never sent over to combat, but actually very well could have like the Pershing was, shit the Pershing wasn't even fucking finished when they deployed it.
[editline]26th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;46333395]But for Era 5, they'll probably going have to go with the [B]Tortoise[/B] even though the purists on the official forums will shake with rage.[/QUOTE]
I want this future.
So is the A6M5 worth the $11? I have $3 in my steam wallet, and I'd spend the $8 or so for a premium plane that is decent. I imagine it isn't no shitfire, but if it gets me premium and a little less grinding in the Japanese tree.. I might for out the extra $8.
[QUOTE=Covalent;46334444]So is the A6M5 worth the $11? I have $3 in my steam wallet, and I'd spend the $8 or so for a premium plane that is decent. I imagine it isn't no shitfire, but if it gets me premium and a little less grinding in the Japanese tree.. I might for out the extra $8.[/QUOTE]
the last time i played it was back in 1.27 and it was pretty nifty, printed money pretty well too.
though, i heard that it was getting downtiered ready for a new tier IV jap prem, and you likely wont get any compensation so ehhh
[QUOTE=Covalent;46334444]So is the A6M5 worth the $11? I have $3 in my steam wallet, and I'd spend the $8 or so for a premium plane that is decent. I imagine it isn't no shitfire, but if it gets me premium and a little less grinding in the Japanese tree.. I might for out the extra $8.[/QUOTE]
No it's not.
Alrighty, I'll save muh money then.
[QUOTE=goon165;46334245]There shouldn't be any complaining about the M6, it's not actually a prototype it [B]was actually accepted into service, hence the M designation, they made 30 of them[/B][/QUOTE]
Accepted into service is definitely a biggie, but barriers to entry is a slippery road. For instance, Russia loved throwing a lot of non-mass-produced prototypes into combat because they could (I-185, SMK, T-100, SU-100Y). If you do the whole "saw combat", that knocks out a lot for basically every other nation sans Germany (Maximum Dicker, Sturer Emil, sIG 33B, Pz.Sfl. II.)
If you say that they had to built it, that's almost perfect, except for poor Japan and the monstrosity of German shit we have at Era V tanks (105 Tiger II, Panther II's hilarious mish-mash.) I don't really know what they can do for Germany at Era V because it's obvious they want to keep the IS-3/4, and maybe even later a T-10M. Just as long as they don't go the fucking plane route and give every nation reskinned T-54s and M46/47 Pattons I'll be happy.
And before it's said, Maus isn't a solution. They already mentioned it'd be extremely unfun to play and fight on both ends with it's historical 12-18kph something, and would be a drivable house in which to get bombed.
[QUOTE=goon165;46334245]There shouldn't be any complaining about the M6, it's not actually a prototype it [B]was actually accepted into service, hence the M designation, they made 30 of them[/B]
I want this future.[/QUOTE]
There was actually 12 M6A1 built but that's irrelevant.
I myself hope M6A2E1 will make it in (The one that's basically T29 turret on M6 hull).
Hadn't touched korean jets since 1.41, finally touched em. Nice to see other players can still take credit for the mig 15 whose wing you blew off.
[QUOTE=Doom14;46335753]Accepted into service is definitely a biggie, but barriers to entry is a slippery road. For instance, Russia loved throwing a lot of non-mass-produced prototypes into combat because they could (I-185, SMK, T-100, SU-100Y). If you do the whole "saw combat", that knocks out a lot for basically every other nation sans Germany (Maximum Dicker, Sturer Emil, sIG 33B, Pz.Sfl. II.)
[/QUOTE]
All of these make good fits for premium vehicles at least, really anything that saw combat should be automatically considered for logical reasons because what the hell is the point then? then you should go about saying whether or not to put it in based on balance/need/etc.
Funny enough the SU-100Y and Sturer Emil complement each other nicely, sure the Emil has batshit penetration but the SU could just huck HE rounds at people.
Now finding a place to PUT THEM is the hard part.
The premium KV-1 just eats all the shells for breakfast. I hit almost every single inch of the tank and "Target Undamaged" And then the KV-1 one shotted me by hitting the driver
[QUOTE=goon165;46336275]All of these make good fits for premium vehicles at least, really anything that saw combat should be automatically considered for logical reasons because what the hell is the point then? then you should go about saying whether or not to put it in based on balance/need/etc.
Funny enough the SU-100Y and Sturer Emil complement each other nicely, sure the Emil has batshit penetration but the SU could just huck HE rounds at people.
Now finding a place to PUT THEM is the hard part.[/QUOTE]
SU-100Y would be probably mighty fine at early era 4 or late era 3.
Thing is that besides the batshit gun, it has pretty good armor for War Thunder standard and isn't slow or clumsy either with the huge engine and rubber tired wheels and stuff.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
