rifle87654
|
« on: May 28, 2010, 08:36:47 am » |
|
Should also make Sherman Crocodille regains main gun. And can purchase a machine gun on the top. A slower firing rate, limited turret rotation, and slower turret rotation compare to the originals cause they also uses the flame thrower.
|
|
|
Logged
|
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha hahahahah hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha hahahahah
Does he have a problem? Anyway he's hilarious.
|
|
|
3rdCondor
Donator
Posts: 1536
|
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2010, 08:54:29 am » |
|
Tbh, the croc is already so powerful that I don't think that it needs a main gun.
|
|
|
Logged
|
No tits, but i will bake a cake then eat it in honour of Sir Condor The 3rd
fuck the pgren rifle, fucking dogshit weapon
My beautiful black pussy won
|
|
|
rifle87654
|
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2010, 09:05:19 am » |
|
but the pofia mod v2.9 implemented it it's not bad a burst of flame then one shot then... a burst of flame then one shot u shouldn't waste those fuel, should u?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SnoOp
|
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2010, 10:03:49 am » |
|
ROFL @ this guys idea of a pwn-machine
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
105TigerHunters
|
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2010, 10:06:46 am » |
|
Tbh, the croc is already so powerful that I don't think that it needs a main gun. Because having an equivalent to the IST would be so unbalanced? a tank that can punch fair amount of damage into m10s and below wat do flames do against tanks? ROFL @ this guys idea of a pwn-machine Refering to both quotes i will agree the machine gun upgrade as well as a regain main gun would be over kill but i do think regaining the main gun would be fair but with less damage to vehicles? not sure if thats possible or not. it may not be as bad if axis infantry had the defence against flame that british infantry do but the time it takes to burn out one axis squad the crocs already bein hailed on by AT with or with out support.
|
|
« Last Edit: May 28, 2010, 10:08:25 am by 105TigerHunters »
|
Logged
|
SnoOp: Hey Undead No one likes you k?
|
|
|
Tymathee
Donator
Posts: 9741
|
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2010, 10:12:05 am » |
|
does next gen affect the croc anyway?
only way i think this could work is a 75mm gun with 1.5x the reload.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I want proof!" "I have proof!" "Whatever, I'm still right"
Dafuq man, don't ask for proof if you'll refuse it if it's not in your favor, logic fallacy for the bloody win.
|
|
|
nated0g
|
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2010, 11:34:27 am » |
|
The US Sherman Croc doesnt have a main weapon. It never did.
Croc shermans have a converted turret to house the flame thrower, thus disabling the turret weapon.
Other Flamethrower tanks (like the British Croc Chruchill) have the main weapon because the flammer is hull mounted.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
105TigerHunters
|
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2010, 12:40:42 pm » |
|
/realism mode on
Come on nate i think the general concept is to even out the sherman croc abit you have a fair point though, edit Z model! add a beefy barrel.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pqumsieh
|
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2010, 01:03:39 pm » |
|
imo, it doesn't need its main gun back. NGV could just increase its range by 5 or 10 (its at 30 I believe) and call it a day. Maybe some added turret rotation to.
PQ
edit: nevermind i just checked it out and its range is 20! Ok, I'd definitely add a +10 range buff to this vehicle. thoughts?
edit2: the churchill croc has a range of 35 for comparison.
|
|
« Last Edit: May 28, 2010, 01:08:06 pm by pqumsieh »
|
Logged
|
Common sense is not so common after all.
|
|
|
105TigerHunters
|
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2010, 01:16:15 pm » |
|
imo, it doesn't need its main gun back. NGV could just increase its range by 5 or 10 (its at 30 I believe) and call it a day. Maybe some added turret rotation to.
PQ
edit: nevermind i just checked it out and its range is 20! Ok, I'd definitely add a +10 range buff to this vehicle. thoughts?
edit2: the churchill croc has a range of 35 for comparison. If the idea of the main gun working along side is proven to be "too OP" then this idea is proberly the next best thing and is pritty fair tbh.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
nated0g
|
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2010, 01:52:10 pm » |
|
i think the US croc is fine. Its great, I have 4.
Reasons being, its fast, its can circle ATGs with its turret and its got the bulldozer.
I think its fine, range increase probably to 25.
I think the brit croc's flame range ti s too far.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sharpshooter824
I <3 Aloha
EIR Veteran Posts: 775
|
« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2010, 02:26:27 pm » |
|
Nate, you have to take into consideration that you can purchase a sherman for like 15 fuel more and get a unit that not only can kill infantry but light vehicles and even damage tanks. The croc could do with a range boost either through NGV (I would love to see some croc buffs from armor doctrine) or just a global range boost to 25-30...
|
|
|
Logged
|
Rawr
|
|
|
Tymathee
Donator
Posts: 9741
|
« Reply #12 on: May 28, 2010, 03:01:58 pm » |
|
The US Croc IRL had a hull mounted flame thrower as well in some versions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_tank#M4A number of methods of production were used. Flamethrowers were either modified versions of existing infantry flame weapons (Flammpanzer I and II) or specially designed (Flammpanzer III). They were mounted externally (Flammpanzer II), replaced existing machine gun mounts, or replaced the tank's main armament (Flammpanzer III). Ammunition for the flame weapon was either carried inside the tank, in armoured external storage, or in some cases in a special trailer behind the tank (Churchill Crocodile). I propose this for the RCA M3 Satan: Improvised conversion of M3 light tank with Canadian Ronso
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Spartan_Marine88
|
« Reply #13 on: May 28, 2010, 03:39:30 pm » |
|
The US Croc IRL had a hull mounted flame thrower as well in some versions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_tank#M4A number of methods of production were used. Flamethrowers were either modified versions of existing infantry flame weapons (Flammpanzer I and II) or specially designed (Flammpanzer III). They were mounted externally (Flammpanzer II), replaced existing machine gun mounts, or replaced the tank's main armament (Flammpanzer III). Ammunition for the flame weapon was either carried inside the tank, in armoured external storage, or in some cases in a special trailer behind the tank (Churchill Crocodile). I propose this for the RCA Its called the Ram Badger
|
|
|
Logged
|
Yes that's me, the special snowflake.
|
|
|
MonthlyMayhem
|
« Reply #14 on: May 28, 2010, 04:15:12 pm » |
|
does next gen affect the croc anyway?
only way i think this could work is a 75mm gun with 1.5x the reload.
The turret rotation would effect it.
|
|
|
Logged
|
aka Maysauze/MrGamenWatch
|
|
|
rifle87654
|
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2010, 08:40:18 pm » |
|
Or limited shells: An abillity. Only 10 uses. Makes it fire it's main gun on desiginated target.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Spartan_Marine88
|
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2010, 11:26:40 pm » |
|
Or limited shells: An abillity. Only 10 uses. Makes it fire it's main gun on desiginated target.
limited sucks, but i would go with cooldown click ability
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
rifle87654
|
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2010, 11:53:39 pm » |
|
Or limited shells: An abillity. Only 10 uses. Makes it fire it's main gun on desiginated target.
limited sucks, but i would go with cooldown click ability I agree with you.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
winisez
|
« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2010, 12:05:49 am » |
|
The regular US croc could do with a tiny weeny little minute buff, like a small fuel reduction or a slightly better flame thrower. imo.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
3rdCondor
Donator
Posts: 1536
|
« Reply #19 on: May 29, 2010, 12:07:50 am » |
|
I still don't like the idea of having a 75mm gun in addition to the flame thrower. I do, however, run a few in my armored company so go ahead and implement it and I'll have a partaaay.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|