• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
PITTPETE

Increase push speed on Flak 36

60 posts in this topic

axis whine away every advantage the allies have, and still keep their god mode tiger that puts up 8 to 1 vs Shermans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
axis whine away every advantage the allies have, and still keep their god mode tiger that puts up 8 to 1 vs Shermans.

The 'God' Tiger which can be knocked out by a 6 pounder frontally at 500m. It's easier to kill a Tiger frontally with a 6 pounder than a Sherman with a 50mm.

'God Tiger' gets minimal supply while Allies get countless Matties at Tier 0.

Axis disagree it is whining, childish, sour grapes, can't take losing.

Allies disagree it is 100% factual, unbiased, done in best interest of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key is to bang the rocks together guys!

Nothing exists in isolation. Remind me how effective A13'S and the Vickers VI is?

Edited by smythes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. We want to promote teamwork in this game, not an army of individuals.

'God Tiger' gets minimal supply while Allies get countless Matties at Tier 0.

Lol. There are probably 3x as many Tigers on the field in T3 as there are Matties in T0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 'God' Tiger which can be knocked out by a 6 pounder frontally at 500m. It's easier to kill a Tiger frontally with a 6 pounder than a Sherman with a 50mm.

'God Tiger' gets minimal supply while Allies get countless Matties at Tier 0.

Axis disagree it is whining, childish, sour grapes, can't take losing.

Allies disagree it is 100% factual, unbiased, done in best interest of the game.

If you're engaging a 6pdr at 500m with a tiger, I suggest you learn 2 tank.

There are way more tigers in t3 than Matties in t0.

Another effect of the axis whine brigade. If the axis whine brigade was present on the eastern front in ww2, the soviets would all be speaking German, because that's how effective they are at creating axis advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The key is to bang the rocks together guys!

Nothing exists in isolation. Remind me how effective A13'S and the Vickers VI is?

Who was the one that first used one isolated example? Hmmm... yourself. So you are just ridiculing yourself. Brilliant self-awareness there...

Lol. There are probably 3x as many Tigers on the field in T3 as there are Matties in T0.

Let's record if there are 3x as many Tiger's in T3 as Matties in T0...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're engaging a 6pdr at 500m with a tiger, I suggest you learn 2 tank.

"Learn 2 tank" wow that's a pretty rubbish attempt to reframe it rather than to deal with the main point. If a Sherman (or a Churchill for that matter) can park 500m out of town and for the most part be impervious to depot spawned ATG from the front but in the same situation a Tiger is not then the Tiger is not exactly a 'God' tank is it?

There are way more tigers in t3 than Matties in t0.

Another effect of the axis whine brigade. If the axis whine brigade was present on the eastern front in ww2, the soviets would all be speaking German, because that's how effective they are at creating axis advantages.

Axis whine brigade? Look at this thread from allied an allied player after one or two axis players occasionally sail Destroyers to Whitstable:

http://forums.battlegroundeurope.com/showthread.php?p=6974572

You have an allied player calling ['whining'] for ship EWS to be increased to 6km because of one factory town while being completely oblivious to it's impact on the rest of the game nor that allies have twice the number of factories. I remember on the Rat Chat some allies also saying that the Whitstable factories should be moved.

Here's the important part: Nobody is calling them whiners, in fact all axis players are engaging by either offering suggestions which can improve gameplay for both sides or airing their disagreements in a civil manner.

Meanwhile when equipment or game mechanics effect axis the behaviour of certain allied players is childish and unproductive; calling axis 'whiners' and projecting that axis have 'God' weapons when after using them they would likely admit in private that they are anything but 'God' weapons.

Again (for some players):

Axis disagree it is whining, childish, sour grapes, can't take losing.

Allies disagree it is 100% factual, unbiased, done in best interest of the game.

Edited by parallama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is about increasing the push speed for the 88.

Talking about a slight increase, not one that would turn the tables.

The fact stands that the push speed was changed way back when for one reason or the other.

Both sides have their whiners.

This is a game suggestion in the SUGGESTIONS section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one am glad we can push the 88 at all. Used to be a time when that wasn't possible.. :)

In any case..if we're talking RL physics, I don't see why it shouldn't move a bit faster. After all: It's mounted on a wheeled carriage and had a crew of what? 6 guys? 8? Not sure, but it was definitely more than a gunner and a commander that WW2ONL models visually. On flat terrain, it should be fairly easy to maneuver around.

For keeping 88's in the fight I think from Tier 2 onwards there should be a new unit of 88's available with an armoured gun shield fitted which would protect against rifle caliber fire.

Or introduce the PaK 43. Not sure if that would fit into Tier 2 (introduced in 1943), but it's basically the gun used in the Tiger II and the Jagdpanther. An 88/L71 mounted on a traditional 2-wheel carriage, much like the 75mm's, giving it a much lower silhouette. That one would hopefully be able to knock out the oh-so-tough Sherman frontally at range ... ;)

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's record if there are 3x as many Tiger's in T3 as Matties in T0...

Clearly you have no idea how the ToEs work.

In T0, there are 3 British divisions, each with 2 inf brigades and 1 armored brigade. With 1 Matty per inf brigade and 3 per armored brigade, that is 5 per division or a maximum of 15 on the map at any given time.

[(1 x 2) + 3] x 3 = 15

In T3, there are 9 German divisions, each with 2 inf brigades and 1 armored brigade. Assuming Tiger numbers haven't been increased from last campaign (if they are we have something to talk about CRS), there are 2 Tigers per inf brigade and 4 per armored brigade. That makes 8 per division or a maximum of 72 Tigers on the map at any given time.

[(2 x 2) + 4] x 9 = 72

Of course these numbers don't include the HQs, but I doubt there are 70 Matties hiding inside them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the pak41 should have the same maneuverability as the 6lbr they were close to the same weight, their shells were even close to the same.

bit of data from the net:

Light atg's

Pak 35/36----- 328 kg

25mm atg----- 480 kg

Qf 2lbr---------814 kg

Medium

Pak 38---------830 kg

47mm----------1,070 kg

QF 6lbr-------- 1,140 kg

Bofors 40mm----1,981 kg

Heavy

Pak 40--------- 1,425 kg

3in M5----------2,210 kg

QF 17lbr--------3,048 kg

8.8cm flak 36----7,407 kg

there's a clear weight difference between German and allied weight classes, yet their maneuverability are similar. the bofors is even heavier and easier to move then the pak40 yet it's in a lighter class.

Pak 43-----------4,380 kg

Or introduce the PaK 43. Not sure if that would fit into Tier 2 (introduced in 1943), but it's basically the gun used in the Tiger II and the Jagdpanther. An 88/L71 mounted on a traditional 2-wheel carriage, much like the 75mm's, giving it a much lower silhouette. That one would hopefully be able to knock out the oh-so-tough Sherman frontally at range ... ;)

S.

the churchill's the only tank it'll counter though, it'll be introduced when the brits are replaced by the Americans too. it could wait till allies get pershings and m4a4's (they were standarized to "Jumbo" armor right?).

-major0noob

Edited by prvt0pwned
making it look nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to hi-jack this thread, but ...:

it could wait till allies get pershings

Pershing? Hmm.. IIRC, that thing was even rarer than the Sturmtiger in the ETO. Putting in the Pershing would be like giving the LW the He-162 "Volksjäger" or the P-80 Shooting Star to the Americans.

Besides: I don't think we should have a "tit for tat" kind of unit-balance. The game should (within reasonable limits) offer the units that were commonly in use during any given part of the war. That's why I'm not really comfortable with the FG42 for example. That thing was pretty darn rare during the war. Much rarer than the BAR, IIRC.

S.

Edited by sascha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly you have no idea how the ToEs work.

In T0, there are 3 British divisions, each with 2 inf brigades and 1 armored brigade. With 1 Matty per inf brigade and 3 per armored brigade, that is 5 per division or a maximum of 15 on the map at any given time.

[(1 x 2) + 3] x 3 = 15

*snip*

Sounds a bit like apples and oranges to me.

The numbers don't lie, but:

IMO the number of Matties/Tigers per brigade is more important here, since we never have all available Axis brigades fight all Allied brigades at the same time. Plus Allies can have Brit and French brigades in the same town, so if we're being honest about this, we should add at least the Char to the equation, since it's about as durable and combat effective as the Matty. And, frankly, the S35 isn't far behind either the Matty or the Char, IMO.

More importantly, we have to remember the environment in which these tanks fight and what they are facing on the other side.

In its tier, the Tiger faces numerous ATGs/tanks that can kill it at range. While in their tier, the Char and the Matty are nearly invulnerable at range to all but one unit (the 88). I'm ignoring bombs and sappers here, since they pose a threat to any tank in any tier.

And while the 88 is nearly immobile on its own, hard to hide and extremely vulnerable to all sorts of attack, the Allies' Anti-Tiger-weapons are plentiful and a lot of them are much more durable and mobile than an 88.

S.

Edited by sascha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All.

...

In any case..if we're talking RL physics, I don't see why it shouldn't move a bit faster. After all: It's mounted on a wheeled carriage and had a crew of what? 6 guys? 8? Not sure, but it was definitely more than a gunner and a commander that WW2ONL models visually. On flat terrain, it should be fairly easy to maneuver around.

...

Or introduce the PaK 43. Not sure if that would fit into Tier 2 (introduced in 1943), but it's basically the gun used in the Tiger II and the Jagdpanther. An 88/L71 mounted on a traditional 2-wheel carriage, much like the 75mm's, giving it a much lower silhouette. That one would hopefully be able to knock out the oh-so-tough Sherman frontally at range ...

Just a few things here:

The gun crew for an 88 is approximately 12 men.

There were two versions of the PaK43. There was the PaK43 mounted on cruciform mount, which offered a full 360 degree traverse and a much lower profile than the ubiquitous anti-aircraft 8.8 cm Flak 18/36. There was also another version, designated PaK43/41, mounted on the on the two-wheel split-trail carriage from the 10.5 cm leFH 18 field howitzer This weapon had limited traverse and was less mobile but still very effective.

Sounds a bit like apples and oranges to me.

The numbers don't lie, but:

IMO the number of Matties/Tigers per brigade is more important here, since we never have all available Axis brigades fight all Allied brigades at the same time. Plus Allies can have Brit and French brigades in the same town, so if we're being honest about this, we should add at least the Char to the equation, since it's about as durable and combat effective as the Matty. And, frankly, the S35 isn't far behind either the Matty or the Char, IMO.

More importantly, we have to remember the environment in which these tanks fight and what they are facing on the other side.

In its tier, the Tiger faces numerous ATGs/tanks that can kill it at range. While in their tier, the Char and the Matty are nearly invulnerable at range to all but one unit (the 88). I'm ignoring bombs and sappers here, since they pose a threat to any tank in any tier.

And while the 88 is nearly immobile on its own, hard to hide and extremely vulnerable to all sorts of attack, the Allies' Anti-Tiger-weapons are plentiful and a lot of them are much more durable and mobile than an 88.

S.

On this point, I would have to generally agree.

Cheers

James10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds a bit like apples and oranges to me.

The numbers don't lie, but:

IMO the number of Matties/Tigers per brigade is more important here, since we never have all available Axis brigades fight all Allied brigades at the same time. Plus Allies can have Brit and French brigades in the same town, so if we're being honest about this, we should add at least the Char to the equation, since it's about as durable and combat effective as the Matty. And, frankly, the S35 isn't far behind either the Matty or the Char, IMO.

More importantly, we have to remember the environment in which these tanks fight and what they are facing on the other side.

In its tier, the Tiger faces numerous ATGs/tanks that can kill it at range. While in their tier, the Char and the Matty are nearly invulnerable at range to all but one unit (the 88). I'm ignoring bombs and sappers here, since they pose a threat to any tank in any tier.

And while the 88 is nearly immobile on its own, hard to hide and extremely vulnerable to all sorts of attack, the Allies' Anti-Tiger-weapons are plentiful and a lot of them are much more durable and mobile than an 88.

S.

And in no way did my post refute or try to avoid this. There is a lot of patently false information being thrown around the forums lately.

'God Tiger' gets minimal supply while Allies get countless Matties at Tier 0.

Read it again. There is nothing true, honest, or factual about that comment. Nothing. By definition, minimal supply can at its lowest be 1, and the ONLY weapon in the game with 1 single unit in the ToES is the Matty, not the Tiger. And they certainly aren't countless because I was able to count them all in a few moments.

My post was to set the record straight, because CRS has been asked to make changes based on these false claims. There are actually people trying to get the Matty removed entirely from the ToES in T0.

There is no other weapons system in the game that is as dominant in its respective tier as the Matty. Everyone agrees to that. The Char and S35 don't even come close to the Matty.

But let's also not forget that it is the ONLY trump card the entire British Army has in T0. Everything else in their arsenal is outclassed by the Germans and many Allied players generally avoid playing Brit altogether, especially in the later tiers once the sole trump card loses its position of dominance.

Can you imagine how terrible the Brits would be in T0 without a Matty? And remember, most of the time there is just 1 Matty available IF it happens to be in supply; otherwise you won't see that lone Matty for another 16+ hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no other weapons system in the game that is as dominant in its respective tier as the Matty. Everyone agrees to that. The Char and S35 don't even come close to the Matty.

why do you Americans always say weapon system?

this has been bugging the hell out of me, you call rifles platforms, and sometimes say system up to 5 times in a single sentence while talking about various parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why do you Americans always say weapon system?

this has been bugging the hell out of me, you call rifles platforms, and sometimes say system up to 5 times in a single sentence while talking about various parts.

Haha honestly I have no idea. But I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 88. The most feared weapon in the game can be one shot with a rifle. Since day 1.

Yes I hope CRS audits this obnoxious weapon instead of giving us new infantry weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 88. The most feared weapon in the game can be one shot with a rifle. Since day 1.

Yes I hope CRS audits this obnoxious weapon instead of giving us new infantry weapons.

And every ATG and every AAA can be shot be one shot one kill by

any rifle, pistol nade, pretty much by anything that can shot can

kill them.

So, whats your point???

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why do you Americans always say weapon system?

this has been bugging the hell out of me, you call rifles platforms, and sometimes say system up to 5 times in a single sentence while talking about various parts.

It's a formal term which is a way of broadly describing the combinations of things that make a weapon. A Humvee on it's own is just a truck. However if you add an MG and armour plating to it then it becomes a armoured truck - a weapons system as different aspects come together to make the overall weapon.

Modern military rifles are like platforms as items can be added to change it's use. Put a launch tube beneath the barrel of an M16 and it becomes a grenade launcher (or launcher of any suitable projectile). Place a weapon such as the KAC Masterkey underneath it and it becomes a shotgun/door breacher.

Likewise if you take a weapon like the Steyr AUG whereby swapping a few components can drastically change how the weapon is used. It can be setup to be like a SMG or to operate as a Light Machine Gun. Thus it's not necessarily a gun but lots of components together which can be changed to alter how that weapon is used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a formal term which is a way of broadly describing the combinations of things that make a weapon. A Humvee on it's own is just a truck. However if you add an MG and armour plating to it then it becomes a armoured truck - a weapons system as different aspects come together to make the overall weapon.

Modern military rifles are like platforms as items can be added to change it's use. Put a launch tube beneath the barrel of an M16 and it becomes a grenade launcher (or launcher of any suitable projectile). Place a weapon such as the KAC Masterkey underneath it and it becomes a shotgun/door breacher.

Likewise if you take a weapon like the Steyr AUG whereby swapping a few components can drastically change how the weapon is used. It can be setup to be like a SMG or to operate as a Light Machine Gun. Thus it's not necessarily a gun but lots of components together which can be changed to alter how that weapon is used.

it sounds really stupid in practice though, say i ask for an advanced weapon system, and get a tank when i wanted a Missile humvee.

the platforms make sense, they sound unnecessary though. the name with a suffix or letter is usually better since it gives more information, like AUG-H, AUG-S,-AUG-M.

i think their just salesmen talk that've rubbed off on americans cause of their hard on for weapons. a salsmen tactic to get them to buy more than 1 thing. like modern gaming's DLC

capco's find suggests prototypes/experimental equipment, probably made popular cause of the controversial f-35 and canceled projects making the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it sounds really stupid in practice though, say i ask for an advanced weapon system, and get a tank when i wanted a Missile humvee.

the platforms make sense, they sound unnecessary though. the name with a suffix or letter is usually better since it gives more information, like AUG-H, AUG-S,-AUG-M.

i think their just salesmen talk that've rubbed off on americans cause of their hard on for weapons. a salsmen tactic to get them to buy more than 1 thing. like modern gaming's DLC

capco's find suggests prototypes/experimental equipment, probably made popular cause of the controversial f-35 and canceled projects making the news.

If you want to project that it is down to Americanism then that's your prerogative.

An F35 (and all advanced fighters) can send data/intel to other aircraft, ground control and Airbourne Early Warning and Control aircraft through their computers. Thus the weapon is more than just a jet with missiles but is one component part of an overall military package.

Likewise the word 'system' has more meanings than just computers as I think many people unconsciously link the word 'System' to computing. A logistics company has systems in place to ensure goods get moved from A to B in the most efficient way possible. This in turn can be applied to the military as they in effect have systems in place

It also fits in with people naturally preferring to use more clinical, less emotive language to describe what is a pretty nasty activity. For example:

1) "The weapons system was highly effective, threat neutralised and objective completed"

2) "The gun was great, the 50cal bullet took his arm off, objective completed"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.