Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

delems

88 still worthless

Recommended Posts

undercova
15 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

He doesnt help, he just puts others down. Makes him feel superior i guess

just to name 2 bugs:

- run SPAA with almost full speed. switch to commander and deploy. vehicle will stop and get rooted as intended. in the background the engine still running at full throttle. when you undeploy again the vehicle is instantly at full speed

- the audio bug for the axis SPAA ... so it wasnt audible for others

 

lol ?!? specially the 2nd one ... is way too obvious and it looks like they just didnt test it properly and not with 2 persons ... or they knew about it and postponed the fix for later on so they can push the feature to live as fast as possible

Edited by undercova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B2K

1) I'd love it if we could model damage for people using equipment (any kind) in ways which historically would render it unusable... maybe one day we will.  I'm sure of course you'll be here to complain about it if we do. 

2) The team swore they heard it, in testing - but since we didn't test just one gun with everyone else watching it - it could have gotten lost amidst their own firing audio.  Fix was applied within 24 hours, and testing method changed, so lesson learned. 

Plenty of room to come provide your expertise - though I'll admit it is easier to sit on the bench and heckle (I used to to do it as well).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
35 minutes ago, B2K said:

though I'll admit it is easier to sit on the bench and heckle

the problem is this is how bugs and in-game feedback is treated... any criticism is lumped into "whining" or "playing the game wrong" and is completely ignored.

the old 12-hit FB is a good example, it took years just to get a simple fix to a problem that apparently wasn't there.

 

heck a lot of the data in the "infantry problems" thread i made is being ignored as useless data. apparently videos of pieces in use are lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SCKING
42 minutes ago, undercova said:

just to name 2 bugs:

- run SPAA with almost full speed. switch to commander and deploy. vehicle will stop and get rooted as intended. in the background the engine still running at full throttle. when you undeploy again the vehicle is instantly at full speed

- the audio bug for the axis SPAA ... so it wasnt audible for others

 

lol ?!? specially the 2nd one ... is way too obvious and it looks like they just didnt test it properly and not with 2 persons ... or they knew about it and postponed the fix for later on so they can push the feature to live as fast as possible

 

As for the first thing, it is known and a fix is being worked on but time became an issue for release.

When I found out about the audio bug, I was thoroughly confused and embarrassed that it slipped past us. We knew we had tested it. After some monday morning quarterbacking and finding out why it wasn't working, it was a minor change that was made last minute into the release client and we didn't get informed of the change. We still should have caught it in our final testing, but it slipped by. I made the final go ahead to release so it all comes back to me in the end. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B2K
1 hour ago, major0noob said:

the problem is this is how bugs and in-game feedback is treated... any criticism is lumped into "whining" or "playing the game wrong" and is completely ignored.

the old 12-hit FB is a good example, it took years just to get a simple fix to a problem that apparently wasn't there.

Not necessarily, most changes (especially recently) are made due to player feedback.  However not all player feedback is doable in the near-term, nor entirely constructive.   

But there is a difference between 'OMG U SUX....... FIX NOW OR I QUITZZORZ!' and actually providing anything usefull to go with.   

The old 12 hit FB as you'll recall also had vociferous proponents as well, so the decision comes to does the benefit outweigh the cost.   Just because an issue that you personally think is wrong doesn't get doesn't get immediately addressed, doesn't mean it's viewed as 'whining' or 'playing wrong'.  

Your infantry thread has a lot of good stuff in it,  just because it isn't acknowledged routinely does not mean it's being ignored.  There are some items in it that are part of the current dev pipeline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merlin51
15 hours ago, saronin said:

No excuses.  They have the M70 modeled on the baby Sherman already.  The could have just used that sight for the time being.  If you are going to "fix" something.  Fix it correctly.

Maybe i did not say it clearly.
The screen shots people sent me when i asked why they could not use it, it included the 75mm sherman sight, both had same issue
The reticle looked like someone had sanded it off just leaving bits and pieces, or like newsprint scanned on a really old handheld scanner?
So it basically rendered both vehicles non usable to them, except maybe right up very close where you can just aim for the center of your screen.

Also, even if that was not the case and the 75mm reticle was good, it would be utterly impossible to do and have it work correctly.
The effect would be the same as if i put the PZ38T optics in the tiger.

One is calibrated for 37mm ammo, the other for 88mm, none of your range demarkations will be correct.
You would set the sight for 1500 M, and shoot right over the top of the target and hit someplace in beijing china (Or in your case, Spain) .

the M4A2 sherman has a 75mm reticle, the ladder is going to be spaced differently, once you get past eyeballing it at 600m it's going to start getting real screwed up
and people are going to start complaining asking wtf, why you put a wrong gunsight in that dont work?
the 76mm ammo has a lot different trajectory and velocity, and the M10 shoots it out of an M5 cannon which has a larger propellent charge than even the M1 gun in the M4A3 sherman so even those optics would not work correctly, the range ladder would be useless.

It's a great idea, it just won't work correctly

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
1 hour ago, B2K said:

But there is a difference between 'OMG U SUX....... FIX NOW OR I QUITZZORZ!' and actually providing anything usefull to go with.  

will you stop strawmanning with extreme dialogue... jesus man, were all adults behind the keyboards not some 2 year olds throwing tantrums :-/

1 hour ago, B2K said:

so the decision comes to does the benefit outweigh the cost.   Just because an issue that you personally think is wrong doesn't get doesn't get immediately addressed

ignoring issues is not benefit vs cost... the gripe is: the attitude that there is no issues and all criticism is ignored

"adding 20% more supply to make up for a superior enemy unit", "making ahistorical units to match opposing forces" examples of benefit vs cost...

"RPATS don't disturb the game", "the RAF is fine and is completely balanced", "no gameplay on the server is ok" examples of ignoring issues

 

2 hours ago, SCKING said:

As for the first thing, it is known and a fix is being worked on but time became an issue for release.

When I found out about the audio bug, I was thoroughly confused and embarrassed that it slipped past us. We knew we had tested it. After some monday morning quarterbacking and finding out why it wasn't working, it was a minor change that was made last minute into the release client and we didn't get informed of the change. We still should have caught it in our final testing, but it slipped by. I made the final go ahead to release so it all comes back to me in the end. 

this right here is awesome no extreme dialogue, rambling, excuses etc. dude just said we screwed up.

 

we're all ok with balancing and rats working with limited resources, but ignoring obvious problems like the old FB only builds up irritation. even worse it makes the game suck more, little by little

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saronin
2 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Maybe i did not say it clearly.
The screen shots people sent me when i asked why they could not use it, it included the 75mm sherman sight, both had same issue
The reticle looked like someone had sanded it off just leaving bits and pieces, or like newsprint scanned on a really old handheld scanner?
So it basically rendered both vehicles non usable to them, except maybe right up very close where you can just aim for the center of your screen.

Also, even if that was not the case and the 75mm reticle was good, it would be utterly impossible to do and have it work correctly.
The effect would be the same as if i put the PZ38T optics in the tiger.

One is calibrated for 37mm ammo, the other for 88mm, none of your range demarkations will be correct.
You would set the sight for 1500 M, and shoot right over the top of the target and hit someplace in beijing china (Or in your case, Spain) .

the M4A2 sherman has a 75mm reticle, the ladder is going to be spaced differently, once you get past eyeballing it at 600m it's going to start getting real screwed up
and people are going to start complaining asking wtf, why you put a wrong gunsight in that dont work?
the 76mm ammo has a lot different trajectory and velocity, and the M10 shoots it out of an M5 cannon which has a larger propellent charge than even the M1 gun in the M4A3 sherman so even those optics would not work correctly, the range ladder would be useless.

It's a great idea, it just won't work correctly

 

Excuses excuses excuses wrapped in more excuses.  I am rapidly losing faith in the new team.  They are becoming the old team 2.0.  The M10 sight issue just proves that.  Bring on HLL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merlin51
43 minutes ago, saronin said:

Excuses excuses excuses

That's no excuse, it is a fact.
You stated something that will not work.
It wont work, you can not poke a sight calibrated for 75mm into a different gun and have it work.
You know that, and yet you suggest it anyways

And the fact that a good portion of players cannot render either one of those 2 scopes in visually useful manner kind of toilet tanks the idea anyways.
But you already know that too actually because i just looked back on some posts where stankyus was trying to pound through your head that he couldn't render the gunsight
and you pretty much didn't care really.

So basically someone made the decision "Here use this for now" while they see why they don't render correctly.
Which proves what exactly?
That they heard the people saying "hey we cant see this thing, we cant use it cause we cant even see what we are doing" and took some pity on them and temporarily 
gave them something from earlier that they verified they could at least see for right now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vasduten1
55 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

And the fact that a good portion of players cannot render either one of those 2 scopes in visually useful manner kind of toilet tanks the idea anyways.

Well... update the chitty graphics and maybe that won't be as big of a problem. If the game's level of detail is SO bad that even a gun scope designed to be used by kids just out of high school can't be rendered then the answer is obvious -update the game for real.

 

See? Priorities.

 

If you're referring to some players whose systems barely run the game and are hamstrung by their PC, then I don't know what to tell you. There are minimum requirements, after all... but that's for functionality. The old PC v console gaming issue is not worth even bringing up in this thread. That's global.

 

We're talking about a historically accurate gun sight and the really bad decision to give the Allied players an unfair AND historically INaccurate advantage.

Bogus.

I'm pretty sure I read scotsman saying that historical accuracy was first. As in, if you don't like the kit, then too bad, because that's how they were designed and they're after accuracy in representation here.

 

I applaud that.

It may take a while to get there, but that's a good goal to have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saronin
1 hour ago, merlin51 said:

That's no excuse, it is a fact.
You stated something that will not work.
It wont work, you can not poke a sight calibrated for 75mm into a different gun and have it work.
You know that, and yet you suggest it anyways

And the fact that a good portion of players cannot render either one of those 2 scopes in visually useful manner kind of toilet tanks the idea anyways.
But you already know that too actually because i just looked back on some posts where stankyus was trying to pound through your head that he couldn't render the gunsight
and you pretty much didn't care really.

So basically someone made the decision "Here use this for now" while they see why they don't render correctly.
Which proves what exactly?
That they heard the people saying "hey we cant see this thing, we cant use it cause we cant even see what we are doing" and took some pity on them and temporarily 
gave them something from earlier that they verified they could at least see for right now?

Yes.  It is fact alright.  It's a fact that the M10 Tank Destroyer has been in game since 10-24-2005 and the god damn sight still isn't right.  You would think they could have figured that out in a shade over a decade.  There is absolutely no excuse for that Merlin.  You just look silly defending that crap.  

Fix the damn sight so it's historical.  Is that too much to ask?  I guess so.  At least having DOC around to insult us all was entertaining.  The 2.0 version is doing the same stuff without the entertainment value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PITTPETE

DOC was collecting a paycheck..Most people working on the game are volunteers.

Continuously criticizing volunteers wont help now will it? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saronin
1 minute ago, Pittpete said:

DOC was collecting a paycheck..Most people working on the game are volunteers.

Continuously criticizing volunteers wont help now will it? 

 

I reserve the right to criticize ridiculous decisions.  That alleged stated objective was to keep things historical.  They have failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Getting on the whole accuracy point.

How come axis has to deal with a weak armored car, while allies have very powerful ones. (not to mention tier 0 ATG)

Yet, when it comes to brit weak rifles, ala no semi,  (even though bolt speed faster than axis); suddenly that is an issue and they get garaands?

Or the french early SMG or brit early SMG?

How come axis has to 'deal with it', when their kit is weak, but allies when their kit is weak get stuff in from the future?
I'd just like a good explanation to that.

 

Why can't they 'deal with it' too?
I know stuff has to be accommodated a bit for balance, but it really seems 3 years into the future is a huge stretch of the word accommodation.

 

Accomodate to me is maybe bringing something in a few months before it's time, or increasing its speed/lethality etc by 10% or 20%. Or, if it can be worked, by having different numbers of gear.

Not whole sale changes in the gear or years into the future.

 

Edited by delems
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merlin51
1 hour ago, vasduten1 said:

If you're referring to some players whose systems barely run the game and are hamstrung by their PC, then I don't know what to tell you. There are minimum requirements, after all... but that's for functionality. The old PC v console gaming issue is not worth even bringing up in this thread. That's global.

?
One of the guys screenshots showed the game running over 100FPS and it was in a 2k resolution, i think that meets the minimum specs
Its my potato at a much lower resolution that draws it correctly, so you are barking way up the wrong tree there.

 

1 hour ago, saronin said:

Fix the damn sight so it's historical.  Is that too much to ask?

Im sure they are, in the meantime someone made a judgement call to at least do something temporarily.
If it was something you used, you would probably scream bloody murder to put it back how it was if you couldn't actually see it to use it, and if it wasn't then you would scream you were ignored. And you wouldn't give a damn if it rendered fine on my potato.

The sight WAS fixed so it was historical
That wasn't the issue, it doesn't render properly for who don't have potatoes running what's now considered low res, which is an increasing number of people.
Somehow that part is either Lost on you, or you simply Don't care?
 

49 minutes ago, delems said:

How come axis has to deal with a weak armored car, while allies have very powerful ones. (not to mention tier 0 ATG)

Well, because the axis kind of never ever ever have a decent armored scout car weaponry wise.
They will in late tiers have one of the best MBT's to exist in WWII, and a mobile fortress that really has none other in it's class.
Best armored car though was the T3 Sdkfz 234 aka Puma, which is probably better than the T3 US M8 Greyhound actually, but both of which by tier 3 kind of pale VS the tanks in play.
By itself the Puma looks really good, until you sit it beside its contemporaries, then not so good considering the time period it finally arrived in.
If that is we are looking at it as an AFV rather than a scouting vehicle.

You probably don't want to hear this, but only the brits fielded what you might call a heavy scout car in the AEC which in T3 would have the 6PDR and then the QF75 as well as 65mm of turret armor (Because they put a damned tank turret on top of the thing)
Britain was just nutty like that i guess?

1 hour ago, delems said:

Yet, when it comes to brit weak rifles, ala no semi,  (even though bolt speed faster than axis); suddenly that is an issue and they get garaands?

Well brit rifle is anything but weak, i mean pretty much you get hit you die most times, but as for why do they use garands?
It was the only semi auto they were supplied with that i know of, even though they chose to relegate them to home guard / reserve use
And it is also the only one that i know of that actually british units like No1 and No3 commando actually used in combat, No6 commando used them during torch (and supposedly didnt like them)
They did not have a home built one that they used in combat during WWII that i know of? 

They don't get them in game until that time period, unless something changed that i missed lately?

1 hour ago, delems said:

Or the french early SMG or brit early SMG?

? you mean the American T3 M3 and the British T1 Sten
They don't belong there in that tier, an answer which you have gotten over and over.
They need to go off to their respective tiers, which you actually got a Rat telling you specifically that they will be at some point sent off to their respective tiers.
Maybe after the mp34 Mas and m1928 get some remachining or something?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 1:03 PM, saronin said:

The M10 should have the same sight as the M4A2 Sherman.  Look at the top of the damn reticle.  The sight is actually labeled right there.  M70 in the M4A2 Sherman and M70G in the M10.  M4A3 is labeled as the M71 sight.  There is a greater level of zoom on the M4A3 than the M4A2.  The M10 zoom is identical to the M4A3.  It appears to be the wrong damn sight.

Well I agree, I had no idea until I read the read me they rolled them back. I understand the logic due to the resolution.. the M10 site reticle was extremely hard to see.  I rather have the reticle fix instead of a roll back, but I don't pull the lever at CRS. I'm sure they will have the artwork for the reticle fixed soon enough.  The M10 did suffer from the correction, but Its still my favorite AFV to roll around in.  I also hope they get rid of the Tigers max rotation speed for engines off Tigers at some point to also. However as an allied M10 driver, I will not strongly disagree with the roll back up and until the Tigers unhistoric and mechanical impossibility of having a max turret rotation without having the engine on and rev the engines to 3000 rpm.  I would be more inclined to push for the 3x sites on the M10 as a priority.  ATM I am somewhat fine with the roll back.

 

Back on topic - I see no problem with having gun shields on an AA or ATGs.  I also will say that the 88 is NOT easy to see from the air as some claim and often are not spotted until they fire... like all atgs. The gun shield will only really protect from small HE splinters and small arms and I think that is good enough. Air will still be killing atgs and at prob at a greater efficiency with the new HE.. Lets also be honest.. here, the BEFs solid AP ammo will generate fragments punching through the shield making it easier to actually kill the 88 which means we will be able to rely less on sending out infantry or relying on air to get rid of them.  Given the new HE model entering, the Axis will not suffer from having HE early on like the BEF.  ATM you have to actually hit the gunner or actual gun to take it out with solid AP. As infantry taking out the 88, we usually don't like advancing on a 88 anyway in line with the working end of the 88. So its a trade off, the 88 would get its gun shield and some afforded protection but also be more vulnerable to solid shot larger caliber weapons and I dare say more visible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merlin51
9 minutes ago, stankyus said:

I will not strongly disagree with the roll back up and until the Tigers unhistoric and mechanical impossibility of having a max turret rotation without having the engine on and rev the engines to 3000 rpm. 

Be very careful of what you wish for, it is not a 1 way street
Contrary to player belief, many allied tanks could not run around running their turrets all about at will without the engine running either.
The matilda II has a separate engine to run the electrics for the turret, it isn't there in game, it isn't running, it should be.
Allies tanks dont power their turrets with Wu, they have electric and hydraulic turrets and very poor 1940's storage battery tech.
You want dead batteries? cause you cant charge them currently
It's a 2-way street.

Lets take french tanks.....
There is NO position 2, killing 2 should kill gunner, the guy should have to jump up and down
They should work exactly like the PZIIc works in that regards, but the game engine did not allow it.
So should they have a commander or not and just deal with it?

Everyone easily points at the other guy oblivious of all the not real advantages they are sitting on while they bash the other guy.
That 35Kw LiPo embeded in the floorboard of the tank didnt exist in 1940 either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vasduten1
1 hour ago, stankyus said:

I also hope they get rid of the Tigers max rotation speed for engines off Tigers at some point to also. However as an allied M10 driver, I will not strongly disagree with the roll back up and until the Tigers unhistoric and mechanical impossibility of having a max turret rotation without having the engine on and rev the engines to 3000 rpm. 

But then... when Tigers were in active use, they had effective ranges far outside the distance that the engine noise travelled. Not so here.

I'd be totally fine with the Tiger being required to use the engine to run the turret motor, but then all other tanks that had the same restriction should also have the same.

But what about effective range?

"The Wa Pruef report estimated that the Tiger's 88 mm gun would be capable of penetrating the differential case of an American M4 Sherman from 2,100 m (1.3 mi) and the turret front from 1,800 m (1.1 mi), but the Tiger's 88 mm gun would not penetrate the upper glacis plate at any range. The M4 Sherman's 75 mm gun would not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 100 m to achieve a side penetration against the 80 mm upper hull superstructure. The Sherman's upgraded 76 mm gun would have the possibility to penetrate the Tiger's driver's front plate from 600 m, the nose from 400 m and the turret front from 700 m.[43] The M3 90 mm cannon used as a towed anti-aircraft and anti-tank gun, and later mounted in the M36 tank destroyer and finally the late-war M26 Pershing, could penetrate the Tiger's front plate at a range of 1,000 m using standard ammunition, and from beyond 2,000 m when using HVAP.[44]"

 

Sure, we'd all love to see the Pershing n the game... but if ammo effectiveness and range are implemented, nobody is going to want to face a Tiger, ever.

 

You'd have to get within 600M in a Sherman to even have a chance of doing serious damage, but most likely you'd be dead long before that.

 

What should be done though? Make the Panzers only available in small numbers so that the Allies' war machines can outproduce them after all the factories had been decimated?

I don't know the answer to this, but I know this: The Tiger is a kitten and even 80MM side armor gets punched right through to give balance.

 

OMFG, DOC's "balance" threads are now dancing in my head.

I have to go now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merlin51
20 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

finally the late-war M26 Pershing, could penetrate the Tiger's front plate at a range of 1,000 m using standard ammunition, and from beyond 2,000 m when using HVAP

M26 pershings wont be shooting Tiger I, by the time they enter into things it will be Tiger II they contend with.
As for how many so N so's factories are buildings, i guess that depends on what you did to so N so's factories?

Doubt you would see any plethora of M26/Tiger II. Neither would be anyone's MBT
Be more like PZV ausf G, and Sherman M4A3\Sherman Firefly, Maybe some A30's but i think the firefly will be more popular?

By the time an M26 enters, tiger I has since retired.
And by that time hopefully things are worked out so that the tiger I can enter in tier 2 as it should.

35 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

if ammo effectiveness and range are implemented, nobody is going to want to face a Tiger, ever.

eh i think there is this big ammo HE/KE etc audit in progress as we speak.
Though remember, just because A can poke a hole through B at distance C doesn't necessarily mean you can do squat.
A shot B with B set up at the proper angle etc so that you can have a measurable reproducible result.
B may not wish to cooperate in real life and may stubbornly choose  to stick itself at obnoxious angles and such.
You may have to poke B with a stick a few times.

52 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

The Tiger is a kitten and even 80MM side armor gets punched right through

The kitty is only 60mm on the side if you are willing to work below the sponsons and accept limited shot points
but that still gives the possibility of driver or gearbox on the easier shot, and igniting the petrol tank on the harder shot.
possibly better results depending on when you penetrated with.

In any case it means watch out for the little french guy pushing an MLE1937 within 40m of your flank, it might be fatal.
And watch out for anything flanking that can get within range of 70mm of penetration, on 80mm of armor, 70mm of pen will cause spall.

Dont let this be you
nzcnnd871mpDkJ09Izf-o.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
2 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Be very careful of what you wish for, it is not a 1 way street
Contrary to player belief, many allied tanks could not run around running their turrets all about at will without the engine running either.
The matilda II has a separate engine to run the electrics for the turret, it isn't there in game, it isn't running, it should be.
Allies tanks dont power their turrets with Wu, they have electric and hydraulic turrets and very poor 1940's storage battery tech.
You want dead batteries? cause you cant charge them currently
It's a 2-way street.

Lets take french tanks.....
There is NO position 2, killing 2 should kill gunner, the guy should have to jump up and down
They should work exactly like the PZIIc works in that regards, but the game engine did not allow it.
So should they have a commander or not and just deal with it?

Everyone easily points at the other guy oblivious of all the not real advantages they are sitting on while they bash the other guy.
That 35Kw LiPo embeded in the floorboard of the tank didnt exist in 1940 either

I'd be fine with it.  My whole point is that we seem to cherry pick which piece of equipment gets held to a higher standard toward accuracy.  The whole M10 gets its correct zoom while giving the mechanical impossibility to the Tiger sends a very wrong message to the PB.  I rather the Tiger gets its turret speed rolled back until we can deal with making its turret rotation speed be dependent upon engine...  I also think there is a level of hierarchy as to importance of holding more accuracy to historical norms.  So to say, having the p2c gunner/commander work around is a far cry less of importance then lets say if we decided hypothetically to up the 2pdrs penetration on the Matilda arbitrarily. 

 

As for killing the #2 - which would/could be considered the loader, any tank losing the loader the gun should not operate.. However we have made allowances like the 38t and 2c commander gunner also to operate.  Which for gameplay I don't have any problem with. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
1 hour ago, vasduten1 said:

But then... when Tigers were in active use, they had effective ranges far outside the distance that the engine noise travelled. Not so here.

I'd be totally fine with the Tiger being required to use the engine to run the turret motor, but then all other tanks that had the same restriction should also have the same.

But what about effective range?

"The Wa Pruef report estimated that the Tiger's 88 mm gun would be capable of penetrating the differential case of an American M4 Sherman from 2,100 m (1.3 mi) and the turret front from 1,800 m (1.1 mi), but the Tiger's 88 mm gun would not penetrate the upper glacis plate at any range. The M4 Sherman's 75 mm gun would not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 100 m to achieve a side penetration against the 80 mm upper hull superstructure. The Sherman's upgraded 76 mm gun would have the possibility to penetrate the Tiger's driver's front plate from 600 m, the nose from 400 m and the turret front from 700 m.[43] The M3 90 mm cannon used as a towed anti-aircraft and anti-tank gun, and later mounted in the M36 tank destroyer and finally the late-war M26 Pershing, could penetrate the Tiger's front plate at a range of 1,000 m using standard ammunition, and from beyond 2,000 m when using HVAP.[44]"

 

Sure, we'd all love to see the Pershing n the game... but if ammo effectiveness and range are implemented, nobody is going to want to face a Tiger, ever.

 

You'd have to get within 600M in a Sherman to even have a chance of doing serious damage, but most likely you'd be dead long before that.

 

What should be done though? Make the Panzers only available in small numbers so that the Allies' war machines can outproduce them after all the factories had been decimated?

I don't know the answer to this, but I know this: The Tiger is a kitten and even 80MM side armor gets punched right through to give balance.

 

OMFG, DOC's "balance" threads are now dancing in my head.

I have to go now.

 

Again - the whole problem with the tiger rotation speed being upped was that it was in conjunction with making the M10 site correct. There was zero reason to make that allowance while demanding the historical accuracy to the M10.  The faster rotation speed is hardly needed for a tiger at 1.5k.. what makes the rotation speed is when they are in close proximity to the enemy, well within hearing the engine noise. Giving your position away.  However that all being said, all I want to get across is that complaining about the correct zoom on the M10 right now by some of the Axis pb, while making no demands for the historical accuracy of having a engines off max turret rotation speed is just an example of cherry picking at a problem that has a solution down the road.  And TBH I have no arguments with you what so ever on your opinion with the dispersion models on any of the weapon systems.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saronin
15 minutes ago, stankyus said:

I'd be fine with it.  My whole point is that we seem to cherry pick which piece of equipment gets held to a higher standard toward accuracy.  The whole M10 gets its correct zoom while giving the mechanical impossibility to the Tiger sends a very wrong message to the PB.  I rather the Tiger gets its turret speed rolled back until we can deal with making its turret rotation speed be dependent upon engine...  I also think there is a level of hierarchy as to importance of holding more accuracy to historical norms.  So to say, having the p2c gunner/commander work around is a far cry less of importance then lets say if we decided hypothetically to up the 2pdrs penetration on the Matilda arbitrarily. 

 

As for killing the #2 - which would/could be considered the loader, any tank losing the loader the gun should not operate.. However we have made allowances like the 38t and 2c commander gunner also to operate.  Which for gameplay I don't have any problem with. 

Don't muddy the waters here.  At least the Tiger turret rotation speed has a historical basis for reality.  It's max turret rotation is correct assuming the engine is on.  I too would like to see it based on the engine as is historical but that is apparently beyond their current ability.  Maybe they could at least give it two turret speeds based on engine on and engine off.  Regardless,  correctly modeling the appropriate magnification on telescopic sight is not new technology to the game and is done in every other unit in game.  The 5x on the M10 has no historical basis in reality, engine on or off.

Edited by saronin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
9 minutes ago, saronin said:

Don't muddy the waters here.  At least the Tiger turret rotation speed has a historical basis for reality.  It's max turret rotation is correct assuming the engine is on.  I too would like to see it based on the engine as is historical but that is apparently beyond their current ability.  Maybe they could at least give it two turret speeds based on engine on and engine off.  Regardless,  correctly modeling the appropriate magnification on telescopic sight is not new technology to the game and is done in every other unit in game. 

Well like I said before.. correcting the sites is going to happen once the resolution issue is fixed.  They are extremely difficult to see and once that issue is corrected they real sites are back in.  Secondly there is no reason why the Tiger should have had its max rotation speed set.. regardless its either a historic bias or a cherry picked bias of historic norms.. however there is a middle ground and that is to be forgiving of some of these things until the engine or fixes can be done to handle the requirements to fix.  So I can live with the faster rotation speed if it has to stay until they can tie the engine to the turret speeds.. just as I can live with the adjustment to correct the M10 sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merlin51
23 minutes ago, stankyus said:

I'd be fine with it.  My whole point is that we seem to cherry pick which piece of equipment gets held to a higher standard toward accuracy.  The whole M10 gets its correct zoom while giving the mechanical impossibility to the Tiger sends a very wrong message to the PB.  I rather the Tiger gets its turret speed rolled back until we can deal with making its turret rotation speed be dependent upon engine...  I also think there is a level of hierarchy as to importance of holding more accuracy to historical norms.  So to say, having the p2c gunner/commander work around is a far cry less of importance then lets say if we decided hypothetically to up the 2pdrs penetration on the Matilda arbitrarily. 

 

As for killing the #2 - which would/could be considered the loader, any tank losing the loader the gun should not operate.. However we have made allowances like the 38t and 2c commander gunner also to operate.  Which for gameplay I don't have any problem with. 

No, not same
M10 can get its correct sight back, someone just has to figure out why out of all the sights it does not render right at certain resolutions
Then they can pop it back in.

You say dont cherry pick and yet you are doing just that :(
Tiger turret should be engine driven, but game can't do it. GAME CAN NOT DO IT.
End of story, move on.

No but speed  No but wait but reduce, but half,    accept it and move on
Your turrets do not die in the field due to you not running the engine, you run them at full speed eternally, and you cant do that any more than the tiger can.
You dont even have the annoying sound of the powerpack whining the entire time the turret is on active power
YOU HAVE SAME ADVANTAGE, so until the game can do all the turret dependencies fairly across the board, why handicap just one guy?

And i am sorry but ive no idea what left turn you took with the PZII and PZ38T
They are correct, as correct as the game would allow, commander is either gunning, or he is out top, same guy, he dies you don't shoot.

R35 H39 S35 B1 bis should all be the same way but the game engine had, and i assume still does, a limitation on how many views/cameras/controls any one position may have.
So those units have a phantom crewman (There is no loader up in an apx turret, you could barely fit a sandwich up there)
No axis players are running around saying hey remove the commanders, only 1 man in a french turret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vasduten1
1 hour ago, merlin51 said:

Tiger turret should be engine driven, but game can't do it. GAME CAN NOT DO IT.

No, not the end of story if the code is updated and a current engine is used.

so really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...