[QUOTE=Hammer7;45131759]Ground vehicles has no balance atm. Give it some time.
BT-7 is a rape machine while KV-1 is more like a metal coffin.
And I'm not even talkin about random instagib shots when a light tank can survive 5 shots in the engine and later oneshot you in the frontal armor with a HE shell from 500m away.[/QUOTE]
This isn't world of tanks
[B]shooting a tank into the engine is NOT A GOOD WAY OF KNOCKING IT OUT[/B]
you need to kill the crew or make the ammo cook off (killing the crew
It'd be better if the engine wasn't a magical vapid shell devouring device.
Hell, I find it easier to start fires by shooting transmissions than engines, which makes no sense to me at all.
Yes yes, transmission oils, flammable, yadda yadda - the same stuff WT and WoT regularly spews out on the matter. I just don't think it's a good approach.
All this aside, I find the best "I don't know the the sweet spot" spot to shoot is just below the turret, or where the greatest concentration of crew members are. You can usually slap a lot of modules along the way.
[QUOTE=Doom14;45133072]It'd be better if the engine wasn't a magical vapid shell devouring device.
Hell, I find it easier to start fires by shooting transmissions than engines, which makes no sense to me at all.
Yes yes, transmission oils, flammable, yadda yadda - the same stuff WT and WoT regularly spews out on the matter. I just don't think it's a good approach.
All this aside, I find the best "I don't know the the sweet spot" spot to shoot is just below the turret, or where the greatest concentration of crew members are. You can usually slap a lot of modules along the way.[/QUOTE]
Once the engine grinds to halt there's not much fuel left anymore and you are literally feeding your shells into a hunk of metal. There should be a quite good chance that the first shell that goes into engine sets it on fire, but the subsequent ones, not really.
[editline]17th June 2014[/editline]
And furthermore keep in mind that specifically Soviet tanks feed their engines exclusively with diesel unlike German tanks that run on gas.
Diesel is SIGNIFICANTLY harder to set on fire IRL than gas and even if you do, it burns with steady, slowly burning flame, while gas literally explodes.
Honestly Soviet fuel tanks explode too much for something that should be literally impossible.
[editline]17th June 2014[/editline]
Soviet tank fuel being flammability is quite close to the transmission fluid question, actually :v:
Like, obviously, diesel still has far lower flashpoint than transmission fluid and is more viscious and stuff, but the calorific value of the transmission fluid is probably higher so once you set that on fire it should burn even more happily and destructively.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45132919]This isn't world of tanks
[B]shooting a tank into the engine is NOT A GOOD WAY OF KNOCKING IT OUT[/B]
you need to kill the crew or make the ammo cook off (killing the crew[/QUOTE]
I know right. The problem is when I try to shoot the critical spot - nothing happens.
Like the enemy tank is fully automated and has remote AI module instead of a crew.
[QUOTE=Hammer7;45133568]I know right. The problem is when I try to shoot the critical spot - nothing happens.
Like the enemy tank is fully automated and has remote AI module instead of a crew.[/QUOTE]
Yea the dead/wounded crew members system could use some tweaking, i mean breech and the gun are damaged and the gunner and the loader and literally coating the commander and the interior. And all is well a few seconds later is a bit silly to me.
[QUOTE=Angua;45133849]Yea the dead/wounded crew members system could use some tweaking, i mean breech and the gun are damaged and the gunner and the loader and literally coating the commander and the interior. And all is well a few seconds later is a bit silly to me.[/QUOTE]
A destroyed breech takes more than a full minute to repair assuming nobody is dead.
Ki-200 is weird.
It's terrible and frustrating in RB. Your ammo count ensures only a kill or two, and landing usually fucks the entire plane and sets you on a timer long enough for any drooling dumbfuck late to the party to shoot you down on the runway.
You bring it into Arcade and you become Shoji, God of Death, who's apocalyptic nightmare is on a four minute timer. Only dumb people usually bring jets into Arcade, so even if the enemy has some, you're still able to smash all their faces in.
[QUOTE=Hammer7;45131759]Ground vehicles has no balance atm. Give it some time.
BT-7 is a rape machine while KV-1 is more like a metal coffin.
And I'm not even talkin about random instagib shots when a light tank can survive 5 shots in the engine and later oneshot you in the frontal armor with a HE shell from 500m away.[/QUOTE]
KV-1 a metal coffin?
I don't think you're playing the KV-1 right.
[editline]17th June 2014[/editline]
Laugh as your enemies repeatedly bounce shell after shell off your turret and 130-40 effective armor 45 degree angled plates, laying waste to everything with APHE with a huge HE filler in 1-2 hits.
In contrast, while the BT-7 can get up to some funky positions, it only takes one shot from any gun to cripple... everything.
They should just add the XF-84H
[QUOTE=Orkel;45134524]They should just add the XF-84H[/QUOTE]
Speaking of America, I'd bite someone's leg off to get the XP-79 in game.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Northrop_XP-79.jpg[/t]
What about that P-47 prototype with quad 37mm while we're at it?
[QUOTE=Doom14;45135614]What about that P-47 prototype with quad 37mm while we're at it?[/QUOTE]
XP-72?
[QUOTE=Doom14;45135614]What about that P-47 prototype with quad 37mm while we're at it?[/QUOTE]
American 37mm blows tho.
[editline]17th June 2014[/editline]
It's only acceptable on Cobras because these planes excel at getting into standoff distance from the enemy and you can just jackhammer the shell into their ass.
[editline]17th June 2014[/editline]
Thunderbolt is too unwieldy for that kind of armament.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45135781]Thunderbolt is too unwieldy for that kind of armament.[/QUOTE]
You're talking to the devs who added the HS-129B-3 and Mossie XVIII as if those players would ever seriously credit their teams.
I think given a proper BR, quad 37mms is enough to spray in dives, clip people, and could definitely work. It could never be much of a dog fighter or properly get in to tussles, however.
[sp]All of this is really moot though because I'm honestly fucking tired of prototype and needless one-off planes. There's a lot of mass-produced beauties that we're missing, when instead we got another I-185. I don't give a shit how you slice that one, it's a disgrace - even if all they had to do was type up a few strings, modify it's engine, and give it a skin with a barely different hue.[/sp]
I do love how arbitrarily arcade decides whether your plane is 'burnt down'
I head-oned a 190 in my Ki-84, a stupid decision I know but point aside. He gets one hit on my engine, disabling it and burning up my fuel, but otherwise absolutely no damage, fire even goes out, plane is still totally under my control and within easy distance of the airfield, but I'm still forced to eject because I can't land in time
It's like, unless your pilot is dead or you've actually exploded, there's no reason losing fuel or catching on fire should force you to eject
[QUOTE=Doom14;45135614]What about that P-47 prototype with quad 37mm while we're at it?[/QUOTE]
Wha...?
headexplode.jpg
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45135781]American 37mm blows tho.
[editline]17th June 2014[/editline]
It's only acceptable on Cobras because these planes excel at getting into standoff distance from the enemy and you can just jackhammer the shell into their ass.
[editline]17th June 2014[/editline]
Thunderbolt is too unwieldy for that kind of armament.[/QUOTE]
No plane is too unwieldy for 4 freedom dispensers.
[QUOTE=Doom14;45136643][sp]All of this is really moot though because I'm honestly fucking tired of prototype and needless one-off planes. There's a lot of mass-produced beauties that we're missing, when instead we got another I-185. I don't give a shit how you slice that one, it's a disgrace - even if all they had to do was type up a few strings, modify it's engine, and give it a skin with a barely different hue.[/sp][/QUOTE]
I'm leaning towards being impartial on how important a plane was historically (tho of course they should be priority), it's more of what holes in the trees need to be filled. The PBJs can fuck off, wow another medium american bomber with lots of turrets and mediocre performance, like we don't have enough of those. Britain still lacks a top-tier jet, the bombers are still ass, Japan lacks fuckin' everything, Germany has too many useless 262 variants and no good attackers, Russia and the US have fucking enough of everything and can go on the backseat for a while.
I just had an idea. You know how the P-47 and the P-51 each get two planes in the tree?
Maybe the first P-47/P-51 could be one of the Razorback models and the second one could be a bubble canopy model.
[QUOTE=Shibbey;45137042]I'm leaning towards being impartial on how important a plane was historically (tho of course they should be priority), it's more of what holes in the trees need to be filled. The PBJs can fuck off, wow another medium american bomber with lots of turrets and mediocre performance, like we don't have enough of those. Britain still lacks a top-tier jet, the bombers are still ass, Japan lacks fuckin' everything, Germany has too many useless 262 variants and no good attackers, Russia and the US have fucking enough of everything and can go on the backseat for a while.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure gaijin is just set in their groove and can't be bothered to do new things
insert new patch, add more US and rusky planes, raise the BR's of everything in japan, maybe if the stars are aligned a new brit or german plane, rinse and repeat ad nauseum
~video game development~
I tried a match of arcade tanks because SB was almost completely empty... and it's like shooting fish in a barrel. My one and only game I got 11 player kills and like 4 caps. It's so piss easy that it's boring.
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;45138367]reskin more US, bong, and rusky planes[/QUOTE]
ftfy bby
If they do add an entirely new model, they'll fuck it up something fierce (cough F-82 and F-84.)
[QUOTE=Doom14;45138854]ftfy bby
If they do add an entirely new model, they'll fuck it up something fierce (cough F-82 and F-84.)[/QUOTE]
TBH The Thunderjet got mostly used and became famous for it's ground attack capability, but right now:
A. F-84s can't do proper CAS since only RU and GER can get into tonk battles
B. They didn't give it any fucking ordinance at all, not even one of their shitty loadouts that's way under what the plane could actually carry.
Of course Gajin had to find a few ways to fuck up the one jet I really want in the game, but I'm not even surprised at this point.
I never really heard much in terms of German aircraft carrier aircraft, were they just rare or over shadowed by that of there pacific war friends? I don't even know what model of planes they've used or variations, anyone mind pointing me into the right direction?
[QUOTE=O'Neil;45139118]I never really heard much in terms of German aircraft carrier aircraft, were they just rare or over shadowed by that of there pacific war friends? I don't even know what model of planes they've used or variations, anyone mind pointing me into the right direction?[/QUOTE]
Considering they didn't even finish building the carriers themselves, I doubt they got far on designing planes for them
[QUOTE=O'Neil;45139118]I never really heard much in terms of German aircraft carrier aircraft, were they just rare or over shadowed by that of there pacific war friends? I don't even know what model of planes they've used or variations, anyone mind pointing me into the right direction?[/QUOTE]
Well there were never any completed German carriers, but the planned carriers were to have variants of the BF-109 and the JU-87.
I really love the Ar 234.
With it, I constantly get to see the lovely match up called:
Ar 234, Fw 190 D-13 x 3, Ta 152
vs.
MiG-9 x 2 and Meteor F3 (sometimes Sea) x 3.
My favorite part is when we actually kill all but one jet, and then he runs the clock as the ground targets win the map for the enemy team despite no input from either of us (except like the 2 tanks or 1 base I kill.)
[QUOTE=notrabies;45139163]Well there were never any completed German carriers, but the planned carriers were to have variants of the BF-109 and the JU-87.[/QUOTE]
Another problem with German Aircraft Carriers is that the Luftwaffe or rather the guy in charge of the Luftwaffe refused to let the Kriegsmarine(or any other branch of the German military) have any significant air branch.
The only German aircraft carrier that got anywhere near completion was the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin"]Graf Zeppelin[/URL]; and even then it was never totally completed before it was scuttled. Eventually it was raised by the Soviets and used as a practice target.
There was a second hull laid down, but construction ended after U-boats became a priority.
Big surface warships was never really Germany's thing during WW2, their thing was always U-Boats with a few surface raiders like the Graf Spee. Sure they had the Bismark and Tirpitz, but they didn't really do much of anything.
I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of a "German" naval tech tree is Italian warships since the Italians had a good navy during the early stage of World War II and it was the fourth largest at the time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
