Wirbelwind tank -1 reply

Please wait...

Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#11 12 years ago
Pietje;3541962I think more things should be done then just forcing to land. Adjusting the accuracy of bombs and rockets and their power is another thing that needs to be done. And keep fighter/bombers to a minimum. Saves alot of trouble, i think.

I like the idea of maps pitting small numbers of very superior German armor, plus decent AA, against large numbers of crapstacular Allied tanks + overwhelming air support. There are already many battles without the air factor (think Nordwind/Bulge/Huertgenwald.)

The same could be said of most Allied planes. Especially when it comes to bomb/rocket accuracy and firepower. :)

As for accuracy, you pretty much need to nail a tank bang-on with a 500lb. bomb to kill it -- I would like to see "real" gunsights in planes (not to mention real cockpit views, not just the crippled interior view you get without nosecam which will go anyway), so I think that should solve that.

Maybe, but i can't exactly find any information that planes such as the P-47 could dogfight and bomb at the same time. Carrying bombs is going to influence your plane. However, im talking about most maps. Not just 1944+ maps.

On most maps besides 1944+ ones, German air is not at a disadvantage. El Alamein, Desert Rose, Gazala (I won't even start with all the early war ones)...point being, even if there are pre-1944 ones where German air does not stack up, they're well balanced out by ones where Luftwaffe pwns or at least holds its own, equipment-wise. In general, though, maps like El Al _are_ air heavy compared to what tanks should be able to accomplish, but at least Axis gets mobile AA there. I'll be happy to see Allied mobile AA as well, and a realistic amount of it.

It doesnt really matter to me if they remove the Ostwind. As long we get something good in return for it. Something that doesnt explode the moment you look at it. For example the Sdkfz 251/17 or the Flakpanzer 1.

Agreed. More mobile AA = good; it just shouldn't be this ultra-invincible king-kong infantry lawnmower like the Ostwind is now.




GirlsHateMe

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

30th January 2006

0 Uploads

1,254 Posts

0 Threads

#12 12 years ago

Here are 2 AA Mobelwagen tanks I'd love to see in FH2. 108.jpg35237.jpg




GirlsHateMe

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

30th January 2006

0 Uploads

1,254 Posts

0 Threads

#13 12 years ago

The Flakpanzer IV Mobelwagen Anti-Aircraft Tanks should also be allowed to have their protective flaps opened or closed just like in FH1's SdKfz 10/4 "Flak 38" Halftrack. 76%20-%20flaps1.jpg76%20-%20flaps2.jpglarge99316s220flakpanzeir3.jpg




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#14 12 years ago
FuzzyBunny;3542002On most maps besides 1944+ ones, German air is not at a disadvantage. El Alamein, Desert Rose, Gazala (I won't even start with all the early war ones)...point being, even if there are pre-1944 ones where German air does not stack up, they're well balanced out by ones where Luftwaffe pwns or at least holds its own, equipment-wise.

I meant that the Allies simply receive too much fighter/bombers. Like i said before they really dont have any disadvantages compared to normal fighters. The Germans on the other hand dont receive any fighter/bombers regardless of the fact that they did have them.

In general, though, maps like El Al _are_ air heavy compared to what tanks should be able to accomplish, but at least Axis gets mobile AA there. I'll be happy to see Allied mobile AA as well, and a realistic amount of it.

I have no problem with Allied mobile AA, as long as it is scaled to the amount of planes the Germans get. And historically accurate(M16 GMC appearing on 1942 map for example), but that speaks for its self.

Agreed. More mobile AA = good; it just shouldn't be this ultra-invincible king-kong infantry lawnmower like the Ostwind is now.

On the other hand it shouldnt be ineffective against infantry either as SPAA was used again ground targets and was extremely effective when used in that role. Jochim Peiper used a Oswint to lead his battlegroup in the battle of the bulge. He had a lot of success supressing and destroying AT guns, along with various barricades with the 37mm HE rounds slammed into them. He liked having one in the lead because of the automatic fire caught the Americans by suprise, and seek cover, giving his heavy armor time to deploy from column. More information can be found in the book "Trumpets" by Chalres MacDonald.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#15 12 years ago
Pietje;3542057I meant that the Allies simply receive too much fighter/bombers. Like i said before they really dont have any disadvantages compared to normal fighters.

If there's a way to have bomb load impact performance, I'm all for it. Aside from that, the aircraft I mentioned as examples really were kinda superior and all that jazz.

The Germans on the other hand dont receive any fighter/bombers regardless of the fact that they did have them.

If you're referring to things like the Hs-129 or the occasional Fw-190 with a bomb load, all for it. However, except for Bodenplatte (and we all know how that turned out), 1944+ these didn't have much impact, at least not on the Western front.

On the other hand it shouldnt be ineffective against infantry either as SPAA was used again ground targets and was extremely effective when used in that role.

No, just with realistic limitations (i.e. ammo and overheating and reloading, etc. etc. etc.) and the same for the M16 you mentioned --> <3




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#16 12 years ago
FuzzyBunny;3542830If there's a way to have bomb load impact performance, I'm all for it. Aside from that, the aircraft I mentioned as examples really were kinda superior and all that jazz.

I really dont see what superior has to do with my arguement but i really but wonder superior compared to what?

Hehe, a wild guess, superior to everything the Germans got? It falls in the same category as: "The Allies entirely outclassed the Germans in every aspect". Kind of a strange thing to say, really. Not to insult you but i expect better from you Fuzzy. :)

If you're referring to things like the Hs-129 or the occasional Fw-190 with a bomb load, all for it. However, except for Bodenplatte (and we all know how that turned out), 1944+ these didn't have much impact, at least not on the Western front.

Fighter/bombers are planes like the P-51 that carry bombs. But the Hs-129 is a ground support plane. Not a fighter bomber. The impact doesnt really matter to me. Just more of a "He, we get something different then the Ju-87 for once.". Especially when you keep in mind Germany used a wide variety of bombers.

Not to mention they had rockets of their own wich proved to be overall more effective then those of the Allies and are still in use today. Albeit modified, ofcourse.

No, just with realistic limitations (i.e. ammo and overheating and reloading, etc. etc. etc.) and the same for the M16 you mentioned --> <3

Agreed, that is as long as planes are realistic, otherwise no because SPAA's become sitting ducks.




granpa_jo

I bent my Wookie.

50 XP

1st September 2006

0 Uploads

66 Posts

0 Threads

#17 12 years ago

If were gonna start throwing in weight induced performance loss on bombers carrying a full payload I wanna see the following.

Spitfires stalling out in high power dives. Caberateur engine made for bad times in high power dives.

Engine damage from flying inverted for too long. (makes the motor oil pool at the top of the oil pan, and not allow sufficient oil to circulate.)

Pilot blackouts.

Eliptical wing Highspeed instability on pilot initiating a roll (spitfires most noteably, tho any aircraft with eliptical wings should suffer this same problem.)

Realistic damage to critical components. Sorry folks, but ground fire from even small arms is in fact dangerous to airplanes. Even in the modern age. A bullet from a k98 or any other rife of the era in teh engine = bad.

I could keep going for hours. But what you need to remember is BF2 is NOT a flight sim. Things wont work exactly the way they need to to be "realistic" Just close your eyes and pretend.

ANd i bent my wookie.




Rumpullpus

GF makes me horny

50 XP

26th January 2007

0 Uploads

93 Posts

0 Threads

#18 12 years ago

sure and while we are at it y not have paper airplanes that just glide from high up and can have their bomb blow up by someone on the ground shooting it with a K98. i thought the AA units and the planes where fine in FH.




Schlang

Schlang

50 XP

6th January 2006

0 Uploads

104 Posts

0 Threads

#19 12 years ago

I agree that there should be more AA vehicles, like vehicle mgs, and they should be more powerfull.

BUT I also must say, you guys realise that almost all fighters in WWII carried about 2-6 100 - 250kg bombs? The bf109 could carry 4 250s and the supermarine spitfire could carry tons o rockets! almost all of the planes of WWII could carry some sort of power armament.

Fighter bombers kick "poe" (butt in german, not the mod "p.o.e") I am a pilot in my clan so maybe i am biased, but the fighter bombers are preety realistic in FH1 and i would love to see more.

But i would also like to see more weak points on them, they shouldnt be so damn armoured i have useed all my ammo TWICE on a b25 from a bf109 and NOTHING HAPPENED it shot me down with its tail gun shortly after. -------------------------------------------------------------------- planes should crash cooler also, when it loses all health it should crash in a few different ways, like; 1 it explodes in a fireball causing instant death. 2 it cathces on fire and dives or spins and the longer you are in the plane the more health you lose, by the fire 3 you lose a wing and spiral downwards 4 you lose all power, but you can glide and retain your control surfaces, (WWII fighters are not jets, they can glide quite nicely!)




Komrad_B

Score Monkey

45,850 XP

2nd September 2004

0 Uploads

4,500 Posts

0 Threads

#20 12 years ago
Schlang;3544190I agree that there should be more AA vehicles, like vehicle mgs, and they should be more powerfull. BUT I also must say, you guys realise that almost all fighters in WWII carried about 2-6 100 - 250kg bombs? The bf109 could carry 4 250s and the supermarine spitfire could carry tons o rockets! almost all of the planes of WWII could carry some sort of power armament.

The key word here is ''could''. Adding a pair of 250kg bombs under your fighter is going to make it worthless (or at the very least, much less effective) in a dogfight. Because of this, most fighters were used in their role, that is of shooting other planes down. If fighters can't be made to react realistically while carrying an heavy payload, then fighter bombers just shouldn't be made available.

Fighter bombers kick "poe" (butt in german, not the mod "p.o.e") I am a pilot in my clan so maybe i am biased, but the fighter bombers are preety realistic in FH1 and i would love to see more.

They are realistic in FH1 because they kick ass? Why, tank main guns kick ass at killing planes in FH1, doesn't mean its realistic either.

But i would also like to see more weak points on them, they shouldnt be so damn armoured i have useed all my ammo TWICE on a b25 from a bf109 and NOTHING HAPPENED it shot me down with its tail gun shortly after.

I'm no FH professional pilot, but I think you need to aim for those engines or simply the hull. Wings are apparantly undestructible (I've done some testing with tank guns :lol: ).