Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Quad .50  (Read 4629 times)

Offline Wyrdstone

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Quad .50
« on: 17-06-2010, 13:06:30 »
We had a post on it before but I didn't want to bring that one up by replying to it.
The last time this was mentioned I believe it was decided that the Americans didn't need an AA vehicle when they didn't have a map with planes.
Operation Cobra needs movable AA defences for the Americans. I can't fly, and after being shot out of my m10 enough times in a game I want to hop into this:

I then want to drive over from the American main and gun down those anoying planes.
The Germans have got two AA opel blitzs on that map. We shouldn't have to use those to down enemy fighters. USA is also the only major side without an AA vehicle.

I mean we have the halftrack. We have the .50 cal. Not too much more to do the other stuff.
This vehicle would also be useful for infantry support (the biggest role of this vehicle anyway due to lack of german air power). Just give it a maximum seating of maybe 2-3 people so it can't be used like a halftrack.





As a side note I think there are many more halftrack variants for both the USA and Germany which could be quick and easy additions compared to entire new vehicles.
Logged
I play as Dansolo online. I am also a FHT player.
You will often see me typing questions/crap/exclamations/obscenities.

Offline Flippy Warbear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.921
  • Adequately docile
    • View Profile
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #1 on: 17-06-2010, 13:06:03 »
Sounds quite reasonable addition. Maybe sometime. Dunno.
Logged

Offline Paavopesusieni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.401
  • Spongebob
    • View Profile
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #2 on: 17-06-2010, 16:06:45 »
Some Dev already said we are going to have quad 50 cal.
Logged

Offline Sgt.Radman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 415
    • View Profile
    • Why Should I?
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #3 on: 17-06-2010, 19:06:42 »
Maybe limiting damage 2 infantry cause it would be 2 powerful against infantry.
HE from a tank is already 2 powerful against buildings and certain cover.

Eventually an ability 2 switch from Expl. and AP rounds. But then again the 50 cal is enough already 2 destroy APCs and lighter vehicles.
Logged

Offline Thorondor123

  • God Emperor
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.573
  • Lugbûrz-ûr!
    • View Profile
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #4 on: 17-06-2010, 19:06:08 »
Quote from: Sgt.Radman on 17-06-2010, 19:06:42
Maybe limiting damage 2 infantry cause it would be 2 powerful against infantry.
HE from a tank is already 2 powerful against buildings and certain cover.

No.
Logged
Let mortal heroes sing your fame

Offline Lightning

  • Dreamcrusher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.517
  • FH2 Dev
    • View Profile
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #5 on: 17-06-2010, 19:06:34 »
2 is a number, not a word.
Logged

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #6 on: 17-06-2010, 20:06:27 »
Quote from: Sgt.Radman on 17-06-2010, 19:06:42
Maybe limiting damage 2 infantry cause it would be 2 powerful against infantry.
HE from a tank is already 2 powerful against buildings and certain cover.

Eventually an ability 2 switch from Expl. and AP rounds. But then again the 50 cal is enough already 2 destroy APCs and lighter vehicles.


No.
Logged

Offline Kubador

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.531
  • Flippin' Warbears since 1988
    • View Profile
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #7 on: 17-06-2010, 20:06:22 »
No sayers, would you be so kind to elaborate for the young, number abusing, lad so he knows why his proposal was rejected?
Logged

Offline Sgt.Radman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 415
    • View Profile
    • Why Should I?
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #8 on: 17-06-2010, 20:06:48 »
So the Quad would kill a plane in 2 shots, kill an inf. in 1, kill vehicls in 2 etc.?

I don't find it very balanced.

Do you?

                                                                         I hear a response coming on :  No!


And FFS, do you never use 2=to , u=you ... ??
Logged

Offline Buran

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #9 on: 17-06-2010, 20:06:26 »
Was just looking at the old thread the other day.

Definately support this idea, and keep it as devastating as it is.
Logged

Offline Sander93

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.216
    • View Profile
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #10 on: 17-06-2010, 20:06:50 »
Quote from: Sgt.Radman on 17-06-2010, 20:06:48

And FFS, do you never use 2=to , u=you ... ??

Why would one? It's not like those extra .02 seconds you waste by typing 'to(o)' instead of '2' is going to make your life any shorter. It only looks like 13 year old msn breezah while the people on this forum are teh seri0uz.
Logged

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #11 on: 17-06-2010, 20:06:56 »
Quote from: Sgt.Radman on 17-06-2010, 20:06:48
So the Quad would kill a plane in 2 shots, kill an inf. in 1, kill vehicls in 2 etc.?

I don't find it very balanced.

Do you?

                                                                         I hear a response coming on :  No!


And FFS, do you never use 2=to , u=you ... ??


1) Why would it kill in only 2 shots.  It would be less powerful then the 6 50cals on the Mustang.

2) Yes, it would kill infy in 1 shot, like any other 50 cal weapon.  They were known for being incredibly deadly against infantry.

3) You say something about AP and HE rounds?  Sorry, 50cal AA would only come with normal bullets (donno if they were ever issued AP).

4) HE on tanks is perfect, it is far from being "too powerful"

5) No, I never use the number 2 for "to" and "too".  Its stupid.
Logged

Offline Sgt.Radman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 415
    • View Profile
    • Why Should I?
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #12 on: 17-06-2010, 20:06:37 »
Ok, fair enough for everything. But I wasn't implying that u lower the damage of HE tank rounds. Just saying they are powerful.

AP rounds = tip-fehler (type-mistake, for the non-german connoiseurs), meant to say normal rounds.

HE rounds = as my knowledge says, bullets (even 50.cal) where known to have exploding tips, sometimes
« Last Edit: 17-06-2010, 20:06:08 by Sgt.Radman »
Logged

Offline Buran

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #13 on: 17-06-2010, 20:06:19 »
They were incindiary bullets, and they were only issued for aircraft and even then they weren't standard issue IIRC.
Logged

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: Quad .50
« Reply #14 on: 17-06-2010, 21:06:12 »
Quote from: Sgt.Radman on 17-06-2010, 20:06:37
Ok, fair enough for everything. But I wasn't implying that u lower the damage of HE tank rounds. Just saying they are powerful.

AP rounds = tip-fehler (type-mistake, for the non-german connoiseurs), meant to say normal rounds.

HE rounds = as my knowledge says, bullets (even 50.cal) where known to have exploding tips, sometimes
We have the wirbelwind ingame. It should be twice as deadly vs planes and Infantery and it is ingame and i saw NOBODY complaining about it.

Quad .50's where good vs planes and Deadly vs infantery and APCS. It is still however a fragile vehicle. One Rifle grenade and its dead.
Logged
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up