Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes keep it

5 (41.7%)

No its ahistorical please remove it.

7 (58.3%)

Total Members Voted: 12

[Ghazkull]

dont worry it was just a joke.

[Twinwolf]

Also, stat-ups and such? And maybe say what sorts of new tanks will unlock after this?

EDIT: And can I have a rundown of who died from which crews?

[Kot]

I must say I rarely dive into those games but thanks to the OOC Quote I came here and this actually caught my attention, though I belive you guys might have enough players already... I must admit I haven't read through whole thread because I'm a bit busy at the moment. Also there seems to be an awful lack of tanks, even if just early war ones (Muh Panzer III N waifu ;-; ).

[Parsely]

What about desanting soldiers?

Infantry add a whole new and awesome aspect to tank warfare. It's really too bad that a lot of the better video games that feature armored vehicles don't also have infantry. Infantry don't always have tanks, but you (should) never find tanks without infantry.

I must say I rarely dive into those games but thanks to the OOC Quote I came here and this actually caught my attention, though I belive you guys might have enough players already... I must admit I haven't read through whole thread because I'm a bit busy at the moment. Also there seems to be an awful lack of tanks, even if just early war ones (Muh Panzer III N waifu ;-; ).

Agreed.

Lermfish pointed this out to me and I was super turned off by the schoolgirl horse shit and the bad history (Shermans catching fire easily is a myth) but this is starting to look too fun to pass up.

[Twinwolf]

We unlock more tanks as the game progresses, I believe.

The match that prompted that comment was on IRC, so unfortunately it's not recorded here. I'm sure someone can give a good summary.

[Ghazkull]

I don't know why everyone thinks there won't be more tanks since i expressively say in the beginnign that htere will be but here finally and so that even people with bad eyes can see it:


THERE WILL BE MORE TANKS YOU JUST HAVEN'T UNLOCKED THEM YET!

[Parsely]

-snip-

I know Ghaz. Relax. It looks like you put a lot of work into this game and you shouldn't feel pressured to push out more tanks, but right now there aren't a lot. That's all. I'm looking forward to seeing more early war and Japanese tanks.

[Twinwolf]

Sorry if it seems a bit pushy, but I'd like to know the results of my match. As in, stat-ups and what members of which crews died.

[Ghazkull]

Anyhoow,

If people want to join we need in fact two more players otherwise one player will have to sit it out in the next turn. So yeah go ahead and draw up a sheet.

As for burning Shermans, they did indeed have extreme flammability at the beginning of the war, but if you look at tank upgrades there is wet stowage as an ugprade which reduces fire catching chance by 75%

plus even unmodified, we had a match yesterday where Twinwolfs tank survived like 5 or 6 engine fire checks.
All of that said Twinwolf please have some patience i don't have much time today to update this.

[Twinwolf]

Sorry for being pushy about it. It was the fact that you sometimes posted after I posted such a question without acknowledging it, made me think you didn't notice.

[Parsely]

As for burning Shermans, they did indeed have extreme flammability at the beginning of the war, but if you look at tank upgrades there is wet stowage as an upgrade which reduces fire catching chance by 75%

That's true, but early in the war the Pz. IV also had nearly identical rates of failure due to fire, so the Sherman shouldn't be singled out since it's not much more vulnerable to that risk compared to other tanks.

[Kot]

As for burning Shermans, they did indeed have extreme flammability at the beginning of the war, but if you look at tank upgrades there is wet stowage as an upgrade which reduces fire catching chance by 75%

That's true, but early in the war the Pz. IV also had nearly identical rates of failure due to fire, so the Sherman shouldn't be singled out since it's not much more vulnerable to that risk compared to other tanks.

Earły in the war for Americans is 1942, also what we have is Panzer Iv H, which is pretty late war.

[Sheb]

What I'd like to see is a school fielding 10 38(t), hiding in cities and forest and using the indirect fire to troll the heavier tanks.

[Kot]

What I'd like to see is a school fielding 10 38(t), hiding in cities and forest and using the indirect fire to troll the heavier tanks.

Challenge accepted.

[Parsely]

As for burning Shermans, they did indeed have extreme flammability at the beginning of the war, but if you look at tank upgrades there is wet stowage as an upgrade which reduces fire catching chance by 75%

That's true, but early in the war the Pz. IV also had nearly identical rates of failure due to fire, so the Sherman shouldn't be singled out since it's not much more vulnerable to that risk compared to other tanks.

Earły in the war for Americans is 1942, also what we have is Panzer Iv H, which is pretty late war.

It is specifically an M4A1 ('42-'43), so I guess that makes sense. I think I'll look into fire prevention measures in the other tanks to see where parallels lie. I wouldn't want to assume that just because tanks from other nations are from the same year that they didn't have better/worse fire prevention or ammo storage than the Sherman.

Since this is arena combat, the crews can avoid improperly storing their ammo (i.e. storing it outside the armored racks) unless they decide they need the extra ammo. Not to mention no one has any reason to be carrying HE since there are no infantry, so the likelihood of a catastrophic ammo cook-off should be severely reduced for all tanks, shouldn't it?