King Tiger/Ferdinand/Elefants/Panthers (Merged)

[Solo4114]

I think they are differant in terms of their guns. The early model had a 75 mm StuK 40 L/43 and the latter model with MG and cupola had the 75 mm L/48.

Yes, but my point is that the GAMEPLAY differences would be negligible. The gameplay difference between an L/43 and an L/48 is practically nonexistent, certainly at the ranges we fight.

Now, if you have longer range tank maps -- and by that I mean visibility of 3000m -- THEN you might start to see a difference where, for example the L/48 would be able to penetrate at (for the sake of argument -- I don't know if these #s are right) 1500m whereas the L/43 would only be able to penetrate starting at 1000m or whatever. Something like that would matter.

But we all fight at about 500-600m on official maps anyway, so the L/43 vs. L/48 distinction becomes meaningless. That's what I'm saying when I say "no gameplay difference." Yes, numerically it'd be different, but we'd be past the point of diminishing returns to where you wouldn't notice. It'd probably still take between 1 and 2 hits to kill most of the enemy tanks you'd face. So in the end, for all the time spent, you get no difference in gameplay. That's what I saw with the Pz IV H, anyway. It sure is perty, but it don't play no different.

 

[KrazyKraut]

By that reasoning though we could easily do without the M44 or the PPD. RO distinguishes itself from your average MoH-clone, not only but also, by having more diversity and historical accuracy... instead of just having the "generic" versions for each weapon (class).

 

[JudgeMental]

Just had to revisit this post.....still going eh?.
I think part of the problem is that for every person who genuinely wants to see the King Tiger et al in the game for the additional gameplay they will add, there are a few who think that its some sort of 'silver bullet' that will make them indestructible/invulnerable etc etc.
I sympathise with the views of anyone who genuinely wants to see the vehicles added for the right reasons. I just worry that it will end up like the FG42 in Call Of Duty. Overly powerful and a magnet for spankers with no feeling for the game who just want to see themselves at the top of the scoreboard with no regard for others in their teams. Those advocates of the King Tiger and other 'leet' vehicle in the game I hope you're doing it for the right reason and I hope it doesn't just empty servers when Russians see an expanse of barren featureless steppe with no real cover and a Tiger hundreds of yards away which they have no chance of outflanking and destroying.

It all boils down to "Be carefull what you wish for, you may just get it"

 

[Cnnbs]

I didnt read the whole thread but i think game doesnt need more vehicles or weapons instead bugfixes and enhancements.

 

[Quietus]

I think part of the problem is that for every person who genuinely wants to see the King Tiger et al in the game for the additional gameplay they will add, there are a few who think that its some sort of 'silver bullet' that will make them indestructible/invulnerable etc etc.
I sympathise with the views of anyone who genuinely wants to see the vehicles added for the right reasons. I just worry that it will end up like the FG42 in Call Of Duty. Overly powerful and a magnet for spankers with no feeling for the game who just want to see themselves at the top of the scoreboard with no regard for others in their teams. Those advocates of the King Tiger and other 'leet' vehicle in the game I hope you're doing it for the right reason and I hope it doesn't just empty servers when Russians see an expanse of barren featureless steppe with no real cover and a Tiger hundres of yards away which they have no chance of outflanking and destroying.

It all boils down to "Be carefull what you wish for, you may just get it"

That's how the Tiger I already is, a magnet for OMFG I WANNA BE AWESOME crowd. Sure there are some good skilled players that use the Tiger and make the most out of it but most that use it have no "game" whatsoever and just use the Tiger to make up for their lack of actual skill. A crutch. I had to LMAO on Orel one time after one of our Russian teamates reported that all the Germans were just sitting at their spawn waiting for Tigers to respawn rather than taking one of the numerous other tanks around them. Of course they lost the round because of that (which I doubt any of them actually realized or cared).

 

[melipone]

I didnt read the whole thread but i think game doesnt need more vehicles or weapons instead bugfixes and enhancements.

Yeah, the game is pretty much perfect content-wise. Just a few bugs and and couple tweaks and thats it. Twos teams though aren't there - coders and content makers.

 

[Atomskytten]

Just had to revisit this post.....still going eh?.
I think part of the problem is that for every person who genuinely wants to see the King Tiger et al in the game for the additional gameplay they will add, there are a few who think that its some sort of 'silver bullet' that will make them indestructible/invulnerable etc etc.
I sympathise with the views of anyone who genuinely wants to see the vehicles added for the right reasons. I just worry that it will end up like the FG42 in Call Of Duty. Overly powerful and a magnet for spankers with no feeling for the game who just want to see themselves at the top of the scoreboard with no regard for others in their teams. Those advocates of the King Tiger and other 'leet' vehicle in the game I hope you're doing it for the right reason and I hope it doesn't just empty servers when Russians see an expanse of barren featureless steppe with no real cover and a Tiger hundres of yards away which they have no chance of outflanking and destroying.

It all boils down to "Be carefull what you wish for, you may just get it"

Damn right!

 

[Solo4114]

By that reasoning though we could easily do without the M44 or the PPD. RO distinguishes itself from your average MoH-clone, not only but also, by having more diversity and historical accuracy... instead of just having the "generic" versions for each weapon (class).

Ah, but the M44's differences are substantial by comparison to the other options. It's quicker to move in free-aim and faster to shoulder than the 91/30, and it's got a bayonet unlike the M38. The PPD has a different rate of fire from the other SMGs, which actually makes a difference in its controllability.

All of those have practical, visible effects on gameplay. I don't think that, for example, adding one German variant that had a 30mm plate and a 20mm plate welded together would be all that different a gameplay experience from one that has a single 50mm plate, ya know?

Personally, before they start adding any tanks, I'd rather there be some tank MAPS that use the full view distance. I'd like Tripwire to spend some time working on that, because I think it'd make a BIG difference in a lot of the complaints people have about the game.

 

[KrazyKraut]

Well I really don't want to keep this thread alive forever, I guess all points have been made. But really: the differences between the M38 and the M44 are barely noticable and don't really make more of a, as you phrased it, 'gameplay difference', than the differences between the two StuG versions in question.

The fact that one has a bayo and the other doesn't is an almost perfect analogy to one StuG having a machinegun and the other not. Also the longer barrel *could* make a difference on some custom maps. With the threads popping up on how inferior the German armor is in game minor changes like these could be help to balance out the game here and there... without having to pull any of the "King Tiger / Jagdpanther / Elephant etc..."-cards.

 

[Solo4114]

Actually, in practice, I see the availability of a bayonet on a rifle to be a much bigger practical difference than the availability of a machinegun on a Stug. That's mostly because in infantry fighting, I find myself in far more positions where a bayonet comes in handy than I find myself driving a Stug saying "Oh if only I had a forward-facing MG".

It's extremely rare that Stugs in this game are actually used as assault guns. Most of the time they're used as tank destroyers, so the anti-infantry capabilities are pretty much unimportant as I see it.

Also, there's a big difference between, say, rendering a new infantry weapon when the bulk of other common infantry weapons are already in game, and rendering a tank that isn't that much different when there ARE other options for tanks that would be VERY different from what we currently have.

It'd be more like "OMG, why the hell did they render the M44 when we still don't have the MG34 or the SVT40?" The issue isn't solely that there's little by way of a functional difference. It's that the functional difference is miniscule AND there's other stuff that could be added that would really broaden the gameplay experience. If the early war armored forces were already well represented, I'd say yeah, add the T-34 1943 version, the Stug IIIg, etc. But when there's a large portion of the armored forces not already represented and when the difference between playing those forces and playing what we have is large AND the difference between driving a 1943 T-34 or a Stug IIIg is miniscule by comparison to what we already have, I'd say add the stuff that'll make a larger difference FIRST and THEN add the other stuff (if there's time and resources, of course).

To be clear, I'm not against adding all sorts of vehicles, even the minor variants. But I think in terms of prioritization, other stuff should come first -- the stuff that'll make a larger difference in terms of gameplay and that will expand that experience, rather than simply reinforce what's already there.