• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Tigers

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
#122
RoclorD said:
Well if Tigers will be more hard to beat then they will be very very VERY hard to destroy... ALMOST invulnerable. If they was that hard to beat at WWII then we will have nazi Europe right now...
Click to expand...
it was air power that helped alot:rolleyes::) also the germans did fight the USA russia and the UK all at the same time it was a hard fight
 
Upvote 0
#124
Chec said:
Just would like to jump in on this thread at this point to say something about the realism. I just had a long conversation with my guild about realism in RO. I been trying to get them to come over and play RO and they just wont do it. The argument is that RO is lacking enough realism to pull them away from the other WWII games that they are playing. Most of them are interested in the tank combat of the game and of course want to know what the Tiger tank is like. Well, In honesty, I had to tell them that the tank combat was not up to par on the realism level and that I felt that Tripwire was attempting to balance the game out a bit making some tanks better and others weaker. This lead to negative comments and the final decision was they would not be giving the game a try at this time. My point of this post is that after thinking about this issue already for sometime, then my guild conversation and then reading this thread, people are not going to bother with playing RO if it does not stick with the realism in my opinion. Other games do balance, graphics, and arcade game play better than RO. I think that people are only going to be interested in RO if it can offer a very realistic sim type game. Forgive my punctuation, I had a few to many tonight.
Click to expand...

I have had the same problem, it was going good at first talking about infrantry, then the person I was trying to get to play this game wanted to know about the tanks. Losing battle from their on... I personally think they should implement the dominance of the tiger, simply because it would be very accuarte in the early war and make the game better. If they were to implement this, I would be very fun trying to take the tiger out, would emphasize even more team work on the Russian side. Also they must make sure the tiger doesn't dominate in the late war era, because it bascially didn't.
 
Upvote 0
#125
Colt .45 killer said:
the only reason the allies killed them was because they had so many shermans they drove round the tiger the shelled it in the rear end, on average 4 or 5 shermans were killed for 1 tiger.. ususly more then that.
Click to expand...


I keep hearing this.


but in reality do you think there was just 4-5 shermans and a tiger dueling it out?

No, there were German and Allied soldiers, anti-tank guns, possible air support, and the real good chance of more tanks being around then just a tiger and a handful of shermies..

The 4-5 shermans to flank and surround a tiger, on paper, sounds good enough. But in practice... ouch.


Besides. The american armoured doctrine dictated that tanks were to be engaged by tank destroyers, or aircraft.... the majority of tigers were killed by air support, while the M10's and other tank destroyers come in right behind them. The shermans, unless they absolutely had to, would do thier best to avoid armoured combat, especially against tigers and such.


No matter what you keep complaining about historical facts or stuff, RO is a game. Yes it may be more realistic than most of them but it is still a game. I
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#126
Oh I want the devs to make tank combat as real as humanly possible. But this also means including number differences(Tigers should be so ridiculously outnumbered) air support(German early on, but Russian on late war maps) and AT guns. If the tank combat is made more realistic without all three of those things, it will be horrible.
 
Upvote 0
#128
The problem is that air support is the inherent balancing feature for the Russians in later-war maps.

Read "Tigers in the Mud" by Otto Carius.

He talks a great deal about how his tanks were helpless due to so many Allied aircraft, and not enough anti air.

Until then, we have to either

A.) Nerf the Tiger

or

B.)Very few Tigers, and a lot of Russian tanks.
 
Upvote 0
#129
Option "B" is the best answer "A" should not even be considered because the Tiger I was heavily armored and gunned it should last a long time on the battlefield making limited respawns reasonable for the German side! It would also take away from the realism this game strives for. If anything needs nerfing its that horrendously overpowered PTRD! http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14079&page=2



As for the German/Soviet airforce I propose making some kind of "smart" bots to man all aircraft which should solve the airforce support problems.-:D
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#132
I thought Soviet tanks were suppose to have very bad optics. He seems very accurate if he killed you 4 times with 4 rounds.The T-34/85 can only penetrate the Tiger I frontally at 500 meters and at 100 meters if you are angled.TheT-34/85' rounds should shatter sometimes when hitting the Tiger I's frontal armor causing no damage to the Tiger I. This is due to the Soviets using inferior quality rounds.

The T-34/85 was Not the Soviet answer to the Tiger I. In fact the Tiger I was still a very much feared tank due to the fact it could engage the T-34/85 effectively at ranges the T-34/85 could not and the T-34/85's weakly armored 45mm hull. It was an answer to the fast detorioration of its predessors 76mm main gun's effectiveness. The 76mm round which began the "Great Patrotic war" with a very favorable preformance began to faulter as the German introduced Tanks with superior penetrating high velocity 75mm rounds and the infamous 88mm. Armor also changed from the T-34's introducion the PzIv's and PzIII's by mid-war were all greatly more armored than their eariler variants and with the introduction of the "Wunder"weapons the Soviets needed not only to raise morale and crush enemy defenses quickly they needed a light cost effective tank that could take on these new tanks the German army hurriedly hurled into the battlefield.So has history tells us they used an already proven tank design and upgraded its main gun. In conclusion the 85 varity was a Soviet response to the more common German tanks like Panther and PzIV H.

Snakedude24 said:
Smart bot....
In RO?
Pssshhhh, we'll see a flying saucer before that.:D
Click to expand...
Yeah lol could you imagen all the crashes and stupid tking bombardment s they would cause-:D
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#133
Field Marshal Rommel said:
I thought Soviet tanks were suppose to have very bad optics. He seems very accurate if he killed you 4 times with 4 rounds.The T-34/85 can only penetrate the Tiger I frontally at 500 meters and at 100 meters if you are angled.TheT-34/85' rounds should shatter sometimes when hitting the Tiger I's frontal armor causing no damage to the Tiger I. This is due to the Soviets using inferior quality rounds.
The T-34/85 was not the Soviet answer to the Tiger in fact the Tiger I was still a feared tank due to the fact it could engage the T-34/85 effectively at ranges the T-34/85 could not. The T-34/85 was weakly armored 45mm hull. It was an answer to the fast detorioration of its predessors 76mm effectiveness. The 76mm round which began the Great Patrotic war with a very favorable preformance began to faulter as the German introduced Tanks with superior penetrating highvelocity 75mm rounds and the infamous 88mm. Armor also changed from the T-34's introducion the PzIv's and PzIII's by mid-war were all greatly more armored than their eariler variants and with the introduction of the "Wunder"weapons the Soviets needed not only to raise morale and crush enemy defenses quickly to hasten their drive for Berlin. They needed a light cost effective tank that could take on these new tanks the German army hurried to the battlefield. So in conclusion the 85 varity was a Soviet response to the more common German tanks like Panther and PzIV H as well as the PzIII which faced the 76 version and faired brilliantly. When the 85 came out. It suddenly became more than suicidal to face the T-34 (although it still had the same 45mm hull armor) with the PzIII which was one of the reasons it fell out of favor and production.:)
Click to expand...


Hmmm. Great wall of text scares me...

But from what i read, you need to do a little more homework.


Yes - The russians initially had horrible optics, and were never really able to come close to German optics. But they did get better as time went on... and in '44 they were pretty "acceptable"

Yes - The russians had horribe quality ammo, at first. But by late 1944 the problem was rectified, and their ammo was of acceptable quality.

Yes/maybe - The 85mm, depending on the angle of the shot and ammo used, was generally only able to engage the tiger frontally at 500 meters and less, 500 meters was severely pushing it though, especially if the tigers hull was angled even slightly in the tigers favor. The 85's gun was comparable in performance to the long 75mm L/48 used on the Panzer IV, and depending on whether it was using capped rounds or solid AP rounds, dipped slightly above or below the performance level of the German gun.

Yes - The T-34's armour was only 45mm, but at such a good angle it's relative armour thickness (in the front hull) is 90mm... But thanks to the German APCBC rounds, which were specifically designed to chew through sloped armour, the T-34's still proved to be meaty and good. It's side armour had about 58mm of effective armour between it and the interior, and the rear had 63mm.
 
Upvote 0
#138
Afterburner said:
The Tiger's gun isn't the only one that is messed up. Today on Arad I fired point blank into the rear of a Tiger(I'm talking within 10 meters from the tank) using the IS-2s 122mm cannon, didn't even smoke him.
Click to expand...

Funny cause today on Arad I shot a IS2 twice from the side at about 90 degree angle from less than 50 metres away and both shells bounced off..

Don't tell me the Tiger isn't ****ed up because it is.

FIX THE TANKS BEFORE YOU ADD IN NEW DAMMIT!!
 
Upvote 0
#139
I don't think the armor modelling is perfect, but the factors discussed in this thread about steel quality, training, radios, tactics, distances, etc complicate the process of trying to compare the game experience to reality. I am really neutral right now on whether I think the Tiger is 'nerfed' or 'uber' but I do know that if you learn where the good angle is on it you will realize you can survive against IS-2s easily with distance and the angling.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu