Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

99 Excellent

About stupor-mundi

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1073 profile views
  1. Looks to me like this thread has been hijacked.
  2. Well, an update came out a few days ago. Has anyone noticed a change/improvement in the situation APCR vs the sides / back of the tiger? Wondering if I should get drawn in again or it's still a waste of time.
  3. the info to the right is incomplete, you can't tell apart APCR from the other
  4. While the gun itself is capable of disabling a tiger, all the other aspects conspire to make driving around in the 122 fairly suicidal. Only when you try these turretless vehicles out, do you fully appreciate the huge advantage that you get in a turreted tank afforded by the commander opening the hatch and popping the head out, at the absolutely highest point of the vehicle. Being able to look around 360 deg while at the same time listening. In the 122, in the position on the left, you can open the front/side hatches and listen and look, but you don't gain the spatial awareness that you have from the top of a turreted tank. It feels more like looking out of the windows of a house. OTOH, in the position on the right, you have a rotatable periscope, but in that position you can't listen. You can't use terrain in the way you do in a turreted tank, where your entire tank is occluded by a hill or a bump, whilst the commander's head can just look over that bump. If you're shooting at long range, you are disadvantaged by the steep howitzer arc of the round, it's much harder to achieve a first round hit than with a proper flat trajectory gun, and after you've shot, reloading takes forever. If you're shooting at short range, either in a town or aided by very undulating terrain, you're very disadvantaged by the awful S.A., i.e. it is much much more likely that the tiger's commander detects you, before you're able to sneak up on it.
  5. Torrens I don't want to make k/d ratios the deciding factor. I brought up k/d ratios *because* on EFront a lot of maps are won by red by taking flags, in spite of very high attrition. My point was that, red winning many maps, can give a wrong impression, of there being some kind of balance. The k/d ratios on an actual server have of course a lot to do with loads of other factors. But simply in terms of being able fight tigers at all, it was ridiculous before and it's now extra ridiculous. My argument is not about whether that's accurate in historical terms, I simply don't know. it's about setting up an online game in such a way that there is something on one side and nothing on the other side to balance it off. And I don't buy into Zommer's argument here. That's a valid argument for those who want to fly tank destroyers, but not for those why want to tank. I don't want to ride in a tank scurrying like a mouse, waiting for IL-2 or Peshkas to deal with enemy tanks and for the red tanks just have the functions to take ground objectives which planes can't. As for the attempts of others to lighten the mood, the mood is not light for the predominantly red tankers because we have seen many months of these shifts and I can't see anything in the TC lineup that will address the situation. I think I'll just stop tanking until this is fixed.
  6. That would be a good solution to the issue. Not sure whether technically that can work, considering the client/server interaction. Another solution would be if it were possible to not show tanks in Tacview. I understand that Tacview is a useful tool when flying, but in a tanking situation I don't see all that much of a learning/training benefit.
  7. Torrens, maybe I haven't made my point clear. I didn't intend to belabor the fact that red wins many maps on EFront. Rather, what I'm trying to get across, is that *although* red win many maps, what's important for players is that they can achieve an acceptable kill/get killed ratio, and that ratio is bad for red, even on those maps that red wins. Sure you will find a few red tankers in stats who have high scores, but the overall picture of those stats shows clearly how much easier it is to survive in tiger. (Whilst being effective, of course. Certainly you can just drive away from the action...) The issues with the damage model of the 'old' (free) tanks is one where the hit outcome is, I would say, more erratic. I.e. sometimes a shot bounces off. There's not much point going on about this because I bet the free tanks will be removed when TC is released. But this is in contrast with, fighting a tank like the Tiger, which you simply can't touch beyond a certain distance. Now the SU 122 has been released which is fun and interesting but doesn't really change the situation.
  8. Zommer, I completely agree. Catching or punishing players can't be the goal here. I don't think there's even an official rule against it. Clearly, we can't ask for people to not leave the server and then return, after all, sometimes you want to go to the toilet, or fetch a drink 😄 However, it's possible to disable Tacview on the server, that's why I have asked about that on the EFront thread.
  9. Has happened to me as well, also not very often. Of course it's possible that it happens to some players more often. But I think when that sort of thing happens the message is different, I suspect it will be the 'no data from player' message. And then there is the variant where your tank is on fire, and you get kicked due to bad ping. In that case there will be the 'player kicked' message. So I would hope that the message 'player left the server' indicates the situation where no crash has happened and the player intentionally left the server.
  10. Torrens, you invoke a picture of balance, where none exists (or existed, before this recent change). In red tanks, we were only able to hurt the Tiger from within a very narrow-leafed clover leaf (near perpendicular shots), i.e. not only did you have to be very close, if you didn't succeed to blow the Tiger up immediately, the Tiger commander would notice and turn towards you, and game over. This impression of parity is I think a result of Red winning many maps. And that is an effect which has to do with the higher speed of the T34 off road, and the inability of the game engine to support a closed front, with very large amounts of paks, the absence of infantery and so on... all factors that conspire, so that, in the faster tank, you can simply drive around the opposition. And what contributes to this that when maps are won by achieving the map goals, how many tanks were killed doesn't go into the result. However, if you look at tank vs tank kills, you can see there was no balance at all. It simply makes no viable past-time. For instance, if you look at a stats page you can see that even middling Tiger commanders score very highly, whereas on the red side, it's basically just IL-2 pilots who score highly. The argument of historicity is bonkers here because you can turn this many ways. Why even have the specialized Durchbruchspanzer in game at all, to oppose regular tanks? If historical numbers were applied, the Tigers in each mission should be limited to zero. It's just a waste of time to take historicity as the guide for a viable MMOG. History is full of highly asymetrical conflicts which you wouldn't turn into games because you'd not be able to get people to join the losing side.
  11. Yes. when you return to the airfield and it takes minutes, it won't have a tactical effect. The people I was referring to were somehow very fast to return as tanks. However, I wrote my first post, about tank-plane switching, *before* I realised the thing about Tacview. Those who presumably are using Tacview, are not necessarily engaged in plane-tank switching. They may just be using tanks. That's why I wrote that my initial concern about tank-plane switching is probably academic. In either case, tank-plane switching, or, using Tacview, the tactical advantage is only conceivable in a defensive situation, because any knowledge about the battlefield further from the spawnpoint would indeed be outdated by the time the player spawns, and, manages to drive to that area. If the use of Tacview for this purpose among tankers isn't widespread, then why do I constantly, constantly, see this sequence: Player x is killed Player x left the server Player x connected (within 1, 2 minutes) Are some still suffering from sound bug? I highly doubt it, because, in the times of sound bug, you could constantly see people in the chat complaining about it, and now nobody does.
  12. there is a "Gunner Stations" menu. you have to be within a mission. then click escape
  13. Good point. I was just standing quite close to the blue spawnpoint on a map, and happened to have APHE loaded when a Tiger spawned (I was perpendicular to the side). I cursed at first because I would have preferred APCR in this situation, but I shot anyway and the Tiger blew up. Since some Pz3s spawned I kept the APHE (APCR is somehow weirdly crap against Pz3s). More Tigers spawned and I repeatedly blew them up with the first shot. This is in stark contrast with my recent experience with APCR, which was terrible. Of course, switching to APHE isn't a solution to our problem, because the reason why we use APCR in the first place is that, penetration wise, APCR is meant to be better, and I only got through with APHE *in this case* because the distance was so very small.
  14. I realized something about Tacview recently. Rather than repeat the argument, please see my last comment on the post I wrote: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/57002-tankplane-switching-is-spreading-multiplayer/ So I'm wondering whether it would be possible to disable Tacview on the server? I can see that it's a dilemma, because Tacview is quite useful for the planes.
  15. it just happened to me again, again although the checkbox was checked. T34 old again also. definite bug.
  • Create New...