| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
162
   |
Posted - 2014.12.20 17:50:00 -
[361] - Quote
Vordred Knight wrote:Why can't the Gallente Marauders have a bonus to reps?
Who said they couldn't? We're just trying to find the most balanced bonuses while retaining a good slot count
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2665
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 18:56:00 -
[362] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh, yea, shotgun blaster > PLC blaster. PLC blaster in my mind would be used like a rail..... only it would suck more. Personally I can only see it as a bettering of what we have.....which is mildly because the idea was mine..... but also because currently the large blaster is inappropriate as a tank turret. Firstly it isn't one. Secondly it does not fulfil the primarily role of the main gun of a tank.
That matters why? My statement still stands, shotty blaster would end up being better than a PLC blaster, as a PLC blaster would end up being used like a short range rail, which could be done through tracking computers if they were brung back, so pointless
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2665
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 18:57:00 -
[363] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
The only idea that is good in this thread is returning tanks back to pre 1.7 and to chromosome levels.
1. This 2. So far everything is trying to make it like it was in the past but somehow worse and yes im looking at ppl who want specalized HAVs to be 4/2 so then do we get another tank which has a 5/3? 3. Even Uprising 1.0 days the HAV vs HAV battles were fun between the STD HAVs, FG were in a good place aswell the only true AV problems were the broken AV nades and SL and the Enforcers had militia stats 4. Chrome was fun for the Marauders and Missile turrets which actually had splash damage
Why do you number everything?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2665
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 19:03:00 -
[364] - Quote
Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
162
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 19:59:00 -
[365] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails.
All the good missile tankers do semi auto anyway, but the thing I want the most for my Falchion fit when they come back is some long range missiles. Maybe bring a long range burst turret like we had before?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2665
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 20:08:00 -
[366] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails. All the good missile tankers do semi auto anyway, but the thing I want the most for my Falchion fit when they come back is some long range missiles. Maybe bring a long range burst turret like we had before?
Having it be full auto in CQ makes it just better, but limiting it to semi auto would hurt it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2597
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 21:02:00 -
[367] - Quote
Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger)
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16175
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 22:29:00 -
[368] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails.
Technically all railguns are Gallentean.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
134
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 22:39:00 -
[369] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails. Technically all railguns are Gallentean.
Technically...Railguns and Blasters both originated back when the Caldari People where part of the Gallente Federation making the technology in New Eden a Gallente Invention (although I haven't seen it mentioned if the Amarr went through a Magnetic Acceleration weaponry phase or not), but modern Rail Technology is largely designed by the Caldari while modern Blasters are largely designed by the Gallente but even still, remain completely interchangeable (I guess the reasoning in lorre would be Legacy Purposes?) but Caldari bonuses tend to emphasize the Range for Rails, while Gallente tend to emphasize tracking on Blasters (Amplifying the weapon system's strengths)
Note: I said Largely...not entirely
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 01:53:00 -
[370] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails. Technically all railguns are Gallentean.
Go to the Gal FW store. Now tell me, where's my Gal rails.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 01:55:00 -
[371] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails. Technically all railguns are Gallentean. Technically...Railguns and Blasters both originated back when the Caldari People where part of the Gallente Federation making the technology in New Eden a Gallente Invention (although I haven't seen it mentioned if the Amarr went through a Magnetic Acceleration weaponry phase or not), but "modern" Rail Technology is largely designed by the Caldari while "modern" Blasters are largely designed by the Gallente but even still, remain completely interchangeable (I guess the reasoning in lorre would be Legacy Purposes?) but Caldari bonuses tend to emphasize the Range for Rails, while Gallente tend to emphasize tracking on Blasters (Amplifying the weapon system's strengths) Note: I said Largely...not entirely
Not entirely true, many Gallente ships uses rails vastly over blasters. Myrmidon with rails imo beats the **** out of a blaster one, and CCP lore wise shows this off in Templar One.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 01:57:00 -
[372] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger)
Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
134
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 02:07:00 -
[373] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails. Technically all railguns are Gallentean. Technically...Railguns and Blasters both originated back when the Caldari People where part of the Gallente Federation making the technology in New Eden a Gallente Invention (although I haven't seen it mentioned if the Amarr went through a Magnetic Acceleration weaponry phase or not), but "modern" Rail Technology is largely designed by the Caldari while "modern" Blasters are largely designed by the Gallente but even still, remain completely interchangeable (I guess the reasoning in lorre would be Legacy Purposes?) but Caldari bonuses tend to emphasize the Range for Rails, while Gallente tend to emphasize tracking on Blasters (Amplifying the weapon system's strengths) Note: I said Largely...not entirely Not entirely true, many Gallente ships uses rails vastly over blasters. Myrmidon with rails imo beats the **** out of a blaster one, and CCP lore wise shows this off in Templar One.
Please note the note...also note that I said they remain completely interchangeable (Baltec Megathron uses Rails and a Blaster Rokh...well that's obvious) just they get bonuses primarily focuses on the strengths of their "racially favored" weapon system
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 02:32:00 -
[374] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails. Technically all railguns are Gallentean. Technically...Railguns and Blasters both originated back when the Caldari People where part of the Gallente Federation making the technology in New Eden a Gallente Invention (although I haven't seen it mentioned if the Amarr went through a Magnetic Acceleration weaponry phase or not), but "modern" Rail Technology is largely designed by the Caldari while "modern" Blasters are largely designed by the Gallente but even still, remain completely interchangeable (I guess the reasoning in lorre would be Legacy Purposes?) but Caldari bonuses tend to emphasize the Range for Rails, while Gallente tend to emphasize tracking on Blasters (Amplifying the weapon system's strengths) Note: I said Largely...not entirely Not entirely true, many Gallente ships uses rails vastly over blasters. Myrmidon with rails imo beats the **** out of a blaster one, and CCP lore wise shows this off in Templar One. Please note the note...also note that I said they remain completely interchangeable (Baltec Megathron uses Rails and a Blaster Rokh...well that's obvious) just they get bonuses primarily focuses on the strengths of their "racially favored" weapon system
You said largely, which is just wrong, because it's more half and half for Gallente.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2599
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 03:12:00 -
[375] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno.
It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16175
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:03:00 -
[376] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger.
You could also adjust the spool time and RoF through damage mods.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
134
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:04:00 -
[377] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Technically all railguns are Gallentean.
Technically...Railguns and Blasters both originated back when the Caldari People where part of the Gallente Federation making the technology in New Eden a Gallente Invention (although I haven't seen it mentioned if the Amarr went through a Magnetic Acceleration weaponry phase or not), but "modern" Rail Technology is largely designed by the Caldari while "modern" Blasters are largely designed by the Gallente but even still, remain completely interchangeable (I guess the reasoning in lorre would be Legacy Purposes?) but Caldari bonuses tend to emphasize the Range for Rails, while Gallente tend to emphasize tracking on Blasters (Amplifying the weapon system's strengths) Note: I said Largely...not entirely Not entirely true, many Gallente ships uses rails vastly over blasters. Myrmidon with rails imo beats the **** out of a blaster one, and CCP lore wise shows this off in Templar One. Please note the note...also note that I said they remain completely interchangeable (Baltec Megathron uses Rails and a Blaster Rokh...well that's obvious) just they get bonuses primarily focuses on the strengths of their "racially favored" weapon system You said largely, which is just wrong, because it's more half and half for Gallente.
I was referring to the development of the turret weapons themselves, who's designs pretty clearly follow the racial design patterns (and lorre-wise where largely developed (operative word here, developed, not built) by the Caldari State)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:28:00 -
[378] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger.
....................
Do you understand what my above statement said?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2599
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:43:00 -
[379] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. You could also adjust the spool time and RoF through damage mods.
They were trash, never should've needed them. They took up precious low slots in armor tanks.
A glass Soma was able to trash everything in no more than 3 rail rounds. That was ridiculous. But needing a module to reduce spool time is just silly.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16176
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:54:00 -
[380] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. You could also adjust the spool time and RoF through damage mods. They were trash, never should've needed them. They took up precious low slots in armor tanks. A glass Soma was able to trash everything in no more than 3 rail rounds. That was ridiculous. But needing a module to reduce spool time is just silly.
Weapons mods/ Damage modules are low slot modules though not high slot modules.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2599
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 05:03:00 -
[381] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. .................... Do you understand what my above statement said?
Good enough damage, 0/0 shield/armor (there's nothing neutral, and armor gets shafted badly), and spool/refire/overheat before 1.8. I really would like to be able to fire more than 3 rounds while holding the trigger before it overheats.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16177
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 05:08:00 -
[382] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. You could also adjust the spool time and RoF through damage mods. They were trash, never should've needed them. They took up precious low slots in armor tanks. A glass Soma was able to trash everything in no more than 3 rail rounds. That was ridiculous. But needing a module to reduce spool time is just silly.
Reducing Spooltime is directly increasing RoF...... that's essentially what all modules in EVE do for damage. Why would you not want to drecrease the time between shot.
Oddly enough no one who plays Dust appreciates how fast our tanks fire especially the railguns.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2599
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 06:08:00 -
[383] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Reducing Spooltime is directly increasing RoF...... that's essentially what all modules in EVE do for damage. Why would you not want to drecrease the time between shot.
Oddly enough no one who plays Dust appreciates how fast our tanks fire especially the railguns.
Railguns fire ridiculously slow.
That's not what those modules do in Dust.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 06:09:00 -
[384] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. .................... Do you understand what my above statement said? Good enough damage, 0/0 shield/armor (there's nothing neutral, and armor gets shafted badly), and spool/refire/overheat before 1.8. I really would like to be able to fire more than 3 rounds while holding the trigger before it overheats.
heatsinks, both active and passive
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2599
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 07:43:00 -
[385] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
heatsinks, both active and passive
I was and still am a fan of the active heatsinks, passive not so much. I'd rather have to activate it and get more out of it, than have it always be there but not get a lot out of it.
If they make it so we only get one more round out the rail with a heatsink active, then they're not worth it anyway.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16181
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 09:39:00 -
[386] - Quote
Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 20:37:00 -
[387] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair.
My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16193
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:14:00 -
[388] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair. My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank).
The only downside was if a Tiger caught you in the open..... and or was supported by other lighter tanks you were facing the thickest armour and one of the largest guns in the european theatre...... but flanking makes sense since the 88mm canon had such slow turret traversal.
You'd never want to face the angled forward 102mm welded armour plating when you know that there is less angled 62mm plating on the side and rear of the tank. Trouble I have with the H1 is roughly the same. If a T-34 or a IS-2 gets in close outside say a 60 degree angle I'd have to deal with two armour penetrations before I can bring my own gun to bear.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:17:00 -
[389] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair. My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank). The only downside was if a Tiger caught you in the open..... and or was supported by other lighter tanks you were facing the thickest armour and one of the largest guns in the european theatre...... but flanking makes sense since the 88mm canon had such slow turret traversal. You'd never want to face the angled forward 102mm welded armour plating when you know that there is less angled 62mm plating on the side and rear of the tank. Trouble I have with the H1 is roughly the same. If a T-34 or a IS-2 gets in close outside say a 60 degree angle I'd have to deal with two armour penetrations before I can bring my own gun to bear. I had two Grandfathers in the Second World War. One a Naval Officer out in the North Sea and the other a Chaplain.
You don't even need a commie tank to deal with a Tiger. AS I said, a Sherman could deal with them for the reasons you said.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16193
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:36:00 -
[390] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair. My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank). The only downside was if a Tiger caught you in the open..... and or was supported by other lighter tanks you were facing the thickest armour and one of the largest guns in the european theatre...... but flanking makes sense since the 88mm canon had such slow turret traversal. You'd never want to face the angled forward 102mm welded armour plating when you know that there is less angled 62mm plating on the side and rear of the tank. Trouble I have with the H1 is roughly the same. If a T-34 or a IS-2 gets in close outside say a 60 degree angle I'd have to deal with two armour penetrations before I can bring my own gun to bear. I had two Grandfathers in the Second World War. One a Naval Officer out in the North Sea and the other a Chaplain. You don't even need a commie tank to deal with a Tiger. AS I said, a Sherman could deal with them for the reasons you said.
Later iterations of the Sherman could deal with them adequately especially those that mounted the 105mm Howitzer, most with lesser armaments like the 76mm gun were fodder for the tiger as a result of the innovations in armour plating Henschel and Porsche made during the conflicts.
The only downside to early Sherman tanks was the misconception based of misinterpreted reports by Brittish Gunnery teams that a small calibre 6 Pdr gun could knock out a Tiger.....which it could.....at short range against the thinly armoured 62mm plates, as such the original Sherman's were built with the 75mm gun and assumed to be superior to the Tiger.
The result was that many of the lighter German tanks that were also fitting 7.5cm KwK 40 cannons like the Panzer IV, StuG III, and Marder III could engage and destroy Sherman's from a distance. The first Sherman's equipped with 76mm guns were fielded in early 1944..... at the time very late in the war.
Also if I remember correctly an 88mm Gun (the standard Tiger armament) was almost always powerful enough to penetrate Sherman armour at range which meant hit from those guns were devastating to the crewmen inside.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |