Login

russian armor

M10 Achilles. Yes or No?

Would you like to see the M10 Achilles make an appearance in to the game?
Option Distribution Votes
64%
36%
Total votes: 55
Vote VOTE! Vote ABSTAIN
12 Jan 2016, 17:59 PM
#1
avatar of Jackiebrown

Posts: 657

Title says it all. If the M10 Achilles could be introduced into the game, would you give it the green light, or would you not want to see it? Explanations on why or why not would be good.
12 Jan 2016, 18:06 PM
#2
avatar of Swift

Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1

Comet, Cromwell, Firefly, 17 pounder, 6 pounder, Piat blob.

Nej.
12 Jan 2016, 18:15 PM
#3
avatar of CookiezNcreem
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15

Lol imagine a 200+ damage unit crushing infantry like an m10.

The mass uninstall would kill the community.
12 Jan 2016, 18:22 PM
#4
avatar of Kobunite
Patrion 15

Posts: 615

I'd support the Archer as a commander unit - would be a pretty unique little TD platform...not really the Achilles, too similar to other things.
12 Jan 2016, 18:22 PM
#5
avatar of [Warfarers]Primarch

Posts: 82

I forgot the M10 was on speed in this game when I voted :snfPeter:
British usage of it should change it's role anyway. They used more as a mobile AT gun than a frontline tank killer.
12 Jan 2016, 18:50 PM
#6
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Without "unit replacement" system like in ToV I don't see the point with 17 pounder emplacement and firefly already in game.
12 Jan 2016, 18:54 PM
#7
avatar of gunther09
Donator 22

Posts: 538

voted NO as I do not see a reason. Or why would you like it in?
Because it is cool? Because it will improve the gameplay? positive emotion?.....
12 Jan 2016, 19:29 PM
#8
avatar of edibleshrapnel

Posts: 552

What's the need, so Relic can make more money off nothing really, as there's already the firefly, 17 pounder, and 6 pounder AT gun? Why more? Should we be upsetting the balancing with more units?
12 Jan 2016, 19:32 PM
#9
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Ostheer has Pak43, Stug, Panther, Elephnat, Tiger, Tiger Ace, pak40, schrecks
OKW has Pak43, JP IV, Panther, Jadgtiger, King Tiger, Puma, schrecks

Just sayin...
12 Jan 2016, 19:41 PM
#10
avatar of Swift

Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1

Ostheer has Pak43, Stug, Panther, Elephnat, Tiger, Tiger Ace, pak40, schrecks
OKW has Pak43, JP IV, Panther, Jadgtiger, King Tiger, Puma, schrecks

Just sayin...

But half of them are doctrinal, all of the British anti-tank mentioned is non-doctrinal.
12 Jan 2016, 19:45 PM
#11
avatar of Rollo

Posts: 738

Yes, it would be nice for brits to have an AT option that's not hindered by a 10 second reload (firefly) or a 20 pop cap emplacement (17 pounder).
12 Jan 2016, 19:48 PM
#12
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Jan 2016, 19:41 PMSwift

But half of them are doctrinal, all of the British anti-tank mentioned is non-doctrinal.

That doesn't really mean they should get more doctrinally. UKF was designed specifically to counter heavy armor, more TDs like this seem pointless, because why?
12 Jan 2016, 20:00 PM
#13
avatar of Swift

Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Jan 2016, 19:48 PMKatitof

That doesn't really mean they should get more doctrinally. UKF was designed specifically to counter heavy armor, more TDs like this seem pointless, because why?

I'm confused, your wording suggests you are siding with me but the gist of your argument says otherwise.

I R Confuzzle.
12 Jan 2016, 20:23 PM
#14
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Jan 2016, 20:00 PMSwift

I'm confused, your wording suggests you are siding with me but the gist of your argument says otherwise.

I R Confuzzle.


I'll try again OpieOP.

Achilles would be another mobile TD with 17 pounder and crappy survivability.

I don't believe its needed, I don't see what kind of purpose or unique role it would present, moreover UKF being already heavy AT oriented doesn't seem like it even needs more variety here, I could understand something like this for soviets which AT definitely doesn't excel, but not for brits, even 2 USF TDs fill completely different niche with different playstyle behind them.

In this case, how it wouldn't be inferior firefly?
12 Jan 2016, 21:34 PM
#15
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

Give us the Archer Tank destroyer. Sure it might always need to drive in reverse, but I rather have that somewhere and be more unique than a Firefly without Tulips with slight stat adjustments.

Would make an ideal ambush tank destroyer once you played around with stats and abilities. Shoot and immediately run away, of course it'd have the weirdest/worst pathfinding like the M15 AA HT :P
12 Jan 2016, 21:46 PM
#16
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

I would rather see something more unique than just an up-gun.

Bring on the Staghound.
nee
12 Jan 2016, 21:56 PM
#17
avatar of nee

Posts: 1216

Lack of a reason means no.
12 Jan 2016, 22:06 PM
#18
avatar of Angry Marine Dave

Posts: 62

Give us the Archer Tank destroyer. Sure it might always need to drive in reverse, but I rather have that somewhere and be more unique than a Firefly without Tulips with slight stat adjustments.

Would make an ideal ambush tank destroyer once you played around with stats and abilities. Shoot and immediately run away, of course it'd have the weirdest/worst pathfinding like the M15 AA HT :P


That's actually a really cool idea. A fragile tank destroyer that's meant to camo and ambush before pulling off. Yeah it is similar to Jackson but still a cool thing to have.
13 Jan 2016, 08:13 AM
#19
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

Give us the Archer Tank destroyer. Sure it might always need to drive in reverse, but I rather have that somewhere and be more unique than a Firefly without Tulips with slight stat adjustments.

Would make an ideal ambush tank destroyer once you played around with stats and abilities. Shoot and immediately run away, of course it'd have the weirdest/worst pathfinding like the M15 AA HT :P

Looks too much like SU-76 to me.
13 Jan 2016, 08:18 AM
#20
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

I think the Archer would be better. Achilles is too much like the firefly.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

572 users are online: 572 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49065
Welcome our newest member, Huhmpal01
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM