[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;46660949]That feel when you spend all match being too late to every single fight and the entire enemy team crashes except for one IL28. That feel when you spend all match chasing said il28 and when you finally get to it, you chop his wings off.
Then some asshat zips by, pumps like 5 rounds into him and gets the kill.
[editline]7th December 2014[/editline]
I need a break :([/QUOTE]
I play a lot of Simulator and Custom Battles because of this. In simulator everyone is just trying to survive and it is rare (in my experience) to find more than two aircraft on a single target, at any given time (and even two is fairly rare, usually its 1v1, unless you're after a bomber). And in Custom battles it's like a match from "Who's Line Is It Anyways?", the points don't matter.
So i feel like I end up having more fun. Plus there are more AI to terrorize. What can I say? I love fish in a barrel.
I'm hoping that the US Tank release at least bumps up the number of Tier 1 battles/people to battle against on Tier 1.
I have US/EU/RU selected and I get a match maybe every 5 minutes with 4v4's.
[QUOTE=Doom14;46685134]K-14[/QUOTE]
G-14
Which is basically the current G-6 with a different model (and maybe a bit better if it's an A/S)
Calm your loins
Wasn't the G-14 an outdated design by the time the G-10s where produced more fluently?
[QUOTE=Shibbey;46685430]G-14
Which is basically the current G-6 with a different model (and maybe a bit better if it's an A/S)
Calm your loins[/QUOTE]
Right, G. K-14 is down the road I thought.
[QUOTE=Keys;46685296]I play a lot of Simulator and Custom Battles because of this. In simulator everyone is just trying to survive and it is rare (in my experience) to find more than two aircraft on a single target, at any given time (and even two is fairly rare, usually its 1v1, unless you're after a bomber). And in Custom battles it's like a match from "Who's Line Is It Anyways?", the points don't matter.
So i feel like I end up having more fun. Plus there are more AI to terrorize. What can I say? I love fish in a barrel.[/QUOTE]
I've always wanted to really get into simulator battles, but last time I played the early 109s and they were a bitch fly, nothing like IL2 sturmovik.
[QUOTE=arthuro12;46685459]Wasn't the G-14 an outdated design by the time the G-10s where produced more fluently?[/QUOTE]
Basically, the G-6 was kind of a shit aircraft when it first was a thing and there were multiple attempts to fix its various problems. The big stupid armour plate was replaced with armoured glass, the terrible visibility canopy was replaced with a better one (not modelled on current G-6), they fucked with the aerodynamics, the tail, new tabs were fitted, the terrible ugly horrible stupid blisters were sort of flattened (also not modelled on the current G-6), and added a whole bunch of gun and bomb bullshit that wasn't on the first design
The G-14 was an attempt to put all these upgrades to the G-6 on one standardised aircraft, which was a complete failure as factories started producing about three or four different G-14 variants which made the whole exercise a waste of fucking time
The G-10 came after the G-14, and was just a stop-gap measure while K-4 production was ramping up
[QUOTE=Shibbey;46685669]Basically, the G-6 was kind of a shit aircraft when it first was a thing and there were multiple attempts to fix its various problems. The big stupid armour plate was replaced with armoured glass, the terrible visibility canopy was replaced with a better one (not modelled on current G-6), they fucked with the aerodynamics, the tail, new tabs were fitted, the terrible ugly horrible stupid blisters were sort of flattened (also not modelled on the current G-6), and added a whole bunch of gun and bomb bullshit that wasn't on the first design
The G-14 was an attempt to put all these upgrades to the G-6 on one standardised aircraft, which was a complete failure as factories started producing about three or four different G-14 variants which made the whole exercise a waste of fucking time
The G-10 came after the G-14, and was just a stop-gap measure while K-4 production was ramping up[/QUOTE]
Worth adding the G-10 actually had the K-4 engine, while the G-14 still had the same (weak) engine from G-6.
[editline]11th December 2014[/editline]
Seriously, G-14 is, in context of Arcade and RB, practically redundant with the G-6 in there. No better engine, no better guns.
It's the K-14 you guys are actually waiting for, and that's not in the game yet.
I feel like G-6 might be downgraded a bit to 1943 standard because right now there is a gap in the 109 line because the G-6 is just honestly worse than the G-2
[QUOTE=Shibbey;46691019]I feel like G-6 might be downgraded a bit to 1943 standard because right now there is a gap in the 109 line because the G-6 is just honestly worse than the G-2[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how well the G-6 preforms fully upgraded without the 30mm, but it always seemed to fly much better without it.
Dev's back up.
M2 Medium is in. (SO UGLY). If they enable every MG on it, it'll have [B]SEVEN[/B] frontal firing .30s. Turret traverse is balls though.
M3 Lee is also in. It considers the 37mm cannon the primary, which is odd, but it honesty has like 60-80 pen so it's not too bad. Awkward to use in tandem with the 75, without switching between guns manually for better accuracy. It's actually kinda speedy too.
[QUOTE=Doom14;46691195]Dev's back up.
M2 Medium is in. (SO UGLY). If they enable every MG on it, it'll have [B]SEVEN[/B] frontal firing .30s. Turret traverse is balls though.
[/quote]
I hope they do, but sadly I kinda doubt it. The Stuart didnt get to use its sponson guns either.
[quote]
M3 Lee is also in. It considers the 37mm cannon the primary, which is odd, but it honesty has like 60-80 pen so it's not too bad. Awkward to use in tandem with the 75, without switching between guns manually for better accuracy. It's actually kinda speedy too.[/QUOTE]
Whats the BR on the Lee?
[editline]11th December 2014[/editline]
also rofl
[quote]([B]Two additional .30-caliber machine guns could be mounted on pintles on either side of the turret for anti-aircraft use, bringing the total to nine[/B]—surely a record for any tank brought into service by any army.) The crew consisted of the tank commander, a driver and four gunners. The vehicle provided internal stowage for 200 rounds of 37 mm ammunition and up to [B]12,250 rounds of .30-caliber[/B].[/quote]
[editline]11th December 2014[/editline]
also also
[t]http://devblog.warthunder.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/dhbfaeic.jpg[/t]
[url]http://devblog.warthunder.com/2014/12/11/steel-generals-m4a3105/?hl=en[/url]
Im so hype for the pootgun sherman, and really just the assault tank line in general
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46691221]Whats the BR on the Lee?[/QUOTE]
2.3. Subject to change. Remember that the 75mm is really awkward to use on it and gets a max pen of 93mm. The 37mm tops out at 68mm pen.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46691221]Im so hype for the pootgun sherman, and really just the assault tank line in general[/QUOTE]
Germany really lacks pootguns right now when they could make an entire tree if they wanted. We at least need the StuH.
[QUOTE=Doom14;46691291]2.3. Subject to change. Remember that the 75mm is really awkward to use on it and gets a max pen of 93mm. The 37mm tops out at 68mm pen.[/QUOTE]
Seems reasonable alongside the Stug A with HEAT rounds and the T-28 with the best ammo.
[editline]11th December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doom14;46691291]
Germany really lacks pootguns right now when they could make an entire tree if they wanted. We at least need the StuH.[/QUOTE]
Agree x1000
seriously why the fuck hasnt WoT or WT done this yet, the Germans had like a bazillion assault guns
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46691309]seriously why the fuck hasnt WoT or WT done this yet, the Germans had like a bazillion assault guns[/QUOTE]
Wargaming.net/WoT has been skeptical/flip-floppy because "muh artillery" and they have [B]no idea[/B] how to balance the Sturmtiger.
Gaijin/War Thunder - I dunno. StuH, I'm pretty certain, was in the release tree.
To be honest, I understand both of them being skeptical about the Sturmtiger, since it's technically firing a gigantic-as-fuck rocket with a reload timer that needs an active crane to assist. In Arcade/WoT - it suffers from magic accuracy making it a one shot supreme weapon (KV-2 cough.)
Otherwise, they could easily make a tree out of the sIG 33B and Brummbar. I'm sure they could find some low-tier comedies with stubby 75mms on tiny platforms to help. Likewise, I hope one day War Thunder beats WoT to the punch and gives us a proper Churchill AVRE for shits and giggles.
Doom, is the dev server still up?
I can't get on it.
You can't really add assault gun line until you figure out the balance and efficiency of HE shells against other armor, which neither WoT nor WT had done yet really.
When should we expect 1.45 to come out again? I'm hyped for the "infinite session" thing
[QUOTE=MAC21500;46691783]Doom, is the dev server still up?
I can't get on it.[/QUOTE]
Dunno, I was on an hour or two ago.
So I was talking to Awesomecaek who had some confusion over why the M3 Stuart was in a expandable tree thing, when there's only one in dev right now. Later on:
[quote]Doom: Cause there were a lot of those shits
Doom: M3, M3A1, M3A3; then onto the M5 Stuarts
Doom: 20 mm Multiple Gun Motor Carriage T85.
Anti-aircraft vehicle based on same chassis as T65 (M5A1). Was armed with quad Oerlikon 20 mm cannons.
[/quote]
[t]http://jedsite.info/tanks-mike/mike-number-us/m5_light_series/t85e1/t85e1_001.jpg[/t]
[quote]Doom: X1A.
Based on M3A1, this design had new engine (280 hp (210 kW) Saab-Scania diesel), improved suspension, new upper hull armor, fire controls and DEFA 90 mm gun in a new turret. 80 vehicles were produced.
Doom: excuse me WHAT[/quote]
[t]https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/imagesforarticles/chieftains_hatch/osorio/x1a.jpg[/t]
[quote]Doom: oh my god
Awesomecaek: hahaha why[/quote]
[t]http://www.forte.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/museu-militar-conde-de-linhares-foto-4-nunao.jpg[/t]
[quote]Doom: Brazil SERIOUSLY[/quote]
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;46691837]When should we expect 1.45 to come out again? I'm hyped for the "infinite session" thing[/QUOTE]
[del]Christmas[/del]
[del]New Years[/del]
[del]January[/del]
[del]February[/del]
[del]March[/del]
[del]Spring 2015[/del]
[del]Fall 2015[/del]
[del]Eventually 2015[/del]
[B]Soon™[/B]
[sp]They said they're aiming for a New Years or earlier launch as far as I know. I'd put my money, hope wise, between Christmas and New Years, but knowing Gaijin, it might be later.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Doom14;46691368]Wargaming.net/WoT has been skeptical/flip-floppy because "muh artillery" and they have [B]no idea[/B] how to balance the Sturmtiger.
Gaijin/War Thunder - I dunno. StuH, I'm pretty certain, was in the release tree.
To be honest, I understand both of them being skeptical about the Sturmtiger, since it's technically firing a gigantic-as-fuck rocket with a reload timer that needs an active crane to assist. In Arcade/WoT - it suffers from magic accuracy making it a one shot supreme weapon (KV-2 cough.)
Otherwise, they could easily make a tree out of the sIG 33B and Brummbar. I'm sure they could find some low-tier comedies with stubby 75mms on tiny platforms to help. Likewise, I hope one day War Thunder beats WoT to the punch and gives us a proper Churchill AVRE for shits and giggles.[/QUOTE]
Could also use that Hetzer with the 150mm gun, a bunch of those existed
TBH I dont really see whats so hard about the Sturmtiger. Like you said, from a balance perspective we already have one-shotting-super-long-reload machines (aka anything with a 152mm gun) and they arent exactly game breaking. Plus from a realism perspective the reloading isnt an issue, I believe it could be done entirely from within the tank, and the crane was just for loading new rounds into the vehicle from an ammo tender (Unlike the ARVE which literally needed the loader to leave to tank to reload the gun).
I just want to be able to send a ZiS-30 flying to the moon god damnit
[editline]11th December 2014[/editline]
Also why the heck isnt the M8 Scott the first tank in the assault tank line? Its a perfect damn candidate.
[QUOTE=Doom14;46691368]
Otherwise, they could easily make a tree out of the sIG 33B and [B]Brummbar[/B]. I'm sure they could find some low-tier comedies with stubby 75mms on tiny platforms to help. Likewise, I hope one day War Thunder beats WoT to the punch and gives us a proper Churchill AVRE for shits and giggles.[/QUOTE]
I am so ready for the Brummbar, its like the jovial fat guy of armored vehicles:
[IMG]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs10/i/2006/121/5/0/Sturmpanzer_IV___Brummbar___by_DarkWizard83.jpg[/IMG]
I hope the gyro-stabilizers are included for the Shermans in 1.45, considering how one of their main advantages was to be able to (somewhat) accurately fire while moving.
[QUOTE=DETrooper;46693002]I hope the gyro-stabilizers are included for the Shermans in 1.45, considering how one of their main advantages was to be able to (somewhat) accurately fire while moving.[/QUOTE]
Who needs them, we've got human gyro stabilizers! I love driving over bumpy terrain with an open top tank (AA, etc) and watching the gunner frantically vertically traverse back and forth really fast.
[QUOTE=DETrooper;46693002]I hope the gyro-stabilizers are included for the Shermans in 1.45, considering how one of their main advantages was to be able to (somewhat) accurately fire while moving.[/QUOTE]
Most of what I read said that most of the time they either didn't work or the gunners disabled them voluntarily because they were trash so I dunno how should they operate in the game.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46693386]Most of what I read said that most of the time they either didn't work or the gunners disabled them voluntarily because they were trash so I dunno how should they operate in the game.[/QUOTE]
They were vert stabilizers for the reason of easier target acquisition after moving, but they were prone to issues and most gunners just found them obnoxious anyways.
[QUOTE=DETrooper;46693002]I hope the gyro-stabilizers are included for the Shermans in 1.45, considering how one of their main advantages was to be able to (somewhat) accurately fire while moving.[/QUOTE]
[quote]
Q: Will the American tanks have weapon stabilizers and ballistic computers?
A: [B]Weapon stabilizers are emulated already by means of high-speed vertical cannon movement on the captured Sherman.[/B] The American tanks that have a stabilizer will also have increased vertical gun movement speed.
It's worth remembering that the stabilizer on the Shermans, MZLs and other vehicles wasn't for shooting on the move, but rather for quickly aiming the weapon after stopping. The tank couldn't shoot on the move back then, but it could stop and very quickly aim at a point and fire. We have a similar system in operation on the T-54.
[/quote]
so in a way, yes
[editline]11th December 2014[/editline]
sauce:
[url]http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/192231-news-qa-with-developers/[/url]
Did the T-34 had a gyroscope too? If i remember right they could drive and shoot accurately
[QUOTE=Teippiman;46695931]Did the T-34 had a gyroscope too? If i remember right they could drive and shoot accurately[/QUOTE]
Comrade Boris was stabilizer! However after too much vodka and potato rations he was not good and became problem
[QUOTE=Teippiman;46695931]Did the T-34 had a gyroscope too? If i remember right they could drive and shoot accurately[/QUOTE]
[url]http://tankarchives.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/soviet-stabilizers.html[/url]
Good reading.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
