Am i the only one that is sick and tired driving a tank only to be blown up by bunnyhopping AT infantry ? That is arcade worse then vanilla bf ever was.....
In FH tanks seem to be in FH only to function as target practise for AT infantry, wich is ofcourse rediculous. I think 2 things are wrong :
1) Since you cannot select HE grenades like real tanks could, you are already vulnerable to groups of (AT) infantry. But if tanks lack bow mg and top mg they are litterally defenceless against a group of (AT)infantry. Unlike real tanks. Now in FH maps are swarming with AT infantry, and most tanks lack bow and top mg positions, wich means they are almost useless.
Infantry is the most common enemy found in FH maps, so tanks should be able to effectively fight them. There was no answer from any FH dev, so i think leaving tanks defenceless like this to infantry is their idea of paper - siccors - stone, or a way to please the Quake or UT2K3 bunnyhopping grenadelauncher and railgun community.
Tanks should have selectable HE or AP rounds......if they cannot have that at least they should have all their correct mg positions.
2) Maps ! Almost all maps in FH feature too much cover for bunnyhopping AT infantry, at least if you put tanks in the same map. Tanks are open country weapons, the germans found that out in Warshaw 1939. Cities, forrests and mountains were ( and are still ) infantry battleground. Infantry that fights in these areas can be motorised, have armoured car like vehicles, can have artilery but are never equipped with tanks.
Devisions equipped with tanks will always avoid obstructed terrain in a battle. They may use forrest to hide their advance or precence before a battle, but only after infantry has secured the area. It is ofcourse well know the germans advanced twice through the wooded ardennes. But they did that not to fight, but to break through enemy lines without ( much) fighting, since the enemy also knew that is poor tank fighting area and did not expect tanks to be there. In general all tank battles were in open terrain.
The competition seems to have got that straight, bunnyhopping AT infantry nOObs fare poor in their maps......maybe that is why their mod is not populair.
Since i mentioned BG42 anyway, another thing that bugs me in FH is you suffer from "tunnel vision" in an APC. You can only look straight ahead, while an enemy might completely unnoticed close in to your side. Using external view does not solve that dead angle, that is only front and rear view too, only a bit wider. In BG the APC driver can look around, his vision is still poor, but at least he can see enemies coming !
I didn't mean this tread as "BG42 is better" I only hope FH will feature similair features and well designed maps for the vehicles in them, without "stealing" their ideas. I like FH for the detailed vehicels and damage system, but the maps to me seem all designed for infantry, not for tanks or aircraft.
25th September 2003
Yes that is one excellent map in BG42. I managed to get a game on it last night with 40 odd other players which really made the mod shine. Theres nothing like battles between IS2's and KT's :)
I believe that once the Fausts get sorted in 0.6 and we get some maps that are orientated for armor, others for infantry and so on, i suspect you'll get what you are after.
HE & AP would be nice but i don't know whether it will be possible with the current modibility of the game. If you check out the flak gun they have the primary fire for AA and secondary for AP, and i don't think they could work it any other way for tanks that have a coaxial mg lest they make that another position in the tank.
Fan FH Mapper
9th October 2003
Don't you worry about a thing.
Unless the FH team is retarded, they will have all these issues fixed. Many issues have been looked into, I'm sure. I believe that the Panzerfaust will be very inaccurate when moving around, so that fixes the bunny hopping problem (although I never literally see them bunny hopping myself). The rifles I believe would also be getting more inaccurate when moving around.
You have also seen at the Christmas update that the Russians now have the RPG43, an AT grenade. That also proves they are listening to the community, as this was a suggestion made by a person whom's name I cannot remember right now. Tanks don't need any extra round options in my opinion. Tanks have an AP turret and MG, whihc suits me perfectly fine. Note that tanks where primairily used to fight other tanks, not to spawncamp infantry. If you don't want to get fausted by infantry, then stay in the open, and don't stay at the same spot too long. Use it to provide support, let the infantry handle the flags near the buildings.
Conviniently, I played Nancy yesterday, and it appears that people still don't understand that tanks do not need to be thrown into small area's. Now offcourse is Nancy not one of the best maps around, but it clearly shows that many people think tanks are unbeatable. Have a look at this:
The Axis team has nothing but AT kits.. they obviously are all planning to do some fausting work.
I always let infantry scout ahead, then I advance towards a control point. The enemy armour is distracted by the infantry, so that I can send the enemy armour to hell. It's true that we currently lack some "armour only" maps, but who knows what will be in store for us at the following releases. And hey, why you're at it anyway, why not make some quality maps yourself that suit your requirements? If the people like it, then I'd say you're right.
I'm too cool to Post
17th July 2003
On the one hand Kursk has enough cover in the center that German and Russian a/t infantry can control the spawn points against anything but a Tiger, Tiger takes a little longer or ex packs.
In the open areas of El Alamein youhave to contend with the jeep and kublewagens armed with a/t guys who drive up on the tail of a tank at 60mph, jump out and blow the tank up, jump back in their vehicle and off they go in search of new prey.
They seem to hang out at the radar tower by the Allied base or the village out by the NW corner of the map. Its gotten bad enough that I have had to quit going engie and going support MG so I can jump out and hose down the approaching vehicle.
I dont expect anyone to say its illegal or try to prevent its use in that way. I dont see how anything could be done to prevent it anyways.
but in my opinion bunny hopping and the kubelfausters do take away alot of the realism.
You have also seen at the Christmas update that the Russians now have the RPG43, an AT grenade. That also proves they are listening to the community, as this was a suggestion made by a person whom's name I cannot remember right now.
RPG 43 ? I know who that was.....
But i do not blame the AT weapons for the situation online, i tried to explain it is the FH map design in 0.5 not suitable to support tanks in them against AT infantry. That is why i posted the pics of BG maps, you won't see AT infantry in those maps hopping about.
In FH AT infantry can benefit from a wealth of cover to approach tanks unseen or protected from their guns, while tanks due to a lack of HE rounds and all their mg positions are very vulnrerable to the target they are supposed to fight : infantry.
From 1943 on the dedicated infantry supporting tanks dissapeared ( Panzer IV D) and the all purpose tanks were born. These shot both HE and AP rounds. Half of the Tiger and Panther ammo were HE rounds, and contrary to popular belief they spend most of the time fighting (russian) infantry. Only logical since these were the most numerous on that front.
I take what n0e says way too seriously
27th April 2003
Another point is that FH seems to have jammed vehicles into maps! In a lot of cases it looks like they are actually just putting vehicles on maps so that the vehicle will be in a map. That is a reason why I strongly believe a mod should focus around the mappers, not the modellers. Most edited DICE maps have two to three times as many vehicles as in vanilla! They should definitely tone down on the amount of vehicles and use vanilla maps as a base for how many vehicles they should have in maps. Only a few exceptions should have a large amount compared to vanilla maps, which includes Kursk.
A fire jet should be added to a Panzerfaust which would be fatal at 2-3m.
I take what n0e says way too seriously
27th April 2003
Beast of WarRPG 43 ? I know who that was.....
Why did you change your post :D Don't think I didn't see it!
This is not nam
6th December 2003
In my opinion the tanks should have the power on the ground. as it is now it's more the infantry and thats wrong plus unrealistic. I think the problem is the hole At class there are just to many At's. mayby you could make a limit so only 2/3 At's at the time or make it a kit.
The problem is that on real battlefields AT weapons were used as strictly defensive weapons, whereas in all WWII games ( not only FH fault ) AT weapons are used as offensive Quake or UT2K3 type rocket launchers.
In real life you do not run toward a tank with a AT weapon, you wait with your head down in a manhole, trench or behind other cover for a tank to come close to where you are, and pray to god it doesn't see you.
Because if it does, it will tear you apart with mg fire and HE rounds, up to a distance of 500 - 1000 m ( dependend on the type mg and cannon )
Somehow maps wich are intended as tank battles need to be designed so this "hiding in a defensive position untill the tank is in range" behaviour comes natural, even for nOObs. It is not impossible, if you look at the terrain of the screenshots i posted you see AT infantry has no chance of survival there nif they bunnyhop through the map.......because it is truely "open" terrain......in FH maps truely open terrain is absent. ( DICE maps like EL Alamein are not FH )
That is what i meant......that mid war tanks were dual purpose and their most common target was infantry, so they were well desigend to fight infantry has also to do with that, but i posted about that before.
I sing the body electric...
5th October 2003
Main problem is that it takes under a second to aim an AT weapon. Hell you can even fire them on the run! It's all good saying the MG positions need improving, but honestly how will they stop the current AT class? An axis AT guy spawns and can instantly one hit kill any tank near the spawn. Infantry cover wont do a thing to stop him spawning, and dodging around like a madman before fausting any near by tank.
In real life you had to stop, grab your faust, ready it, aim it and finally fire it. In FH you can switch to a faust and fire it within a second while running. That is the main problem with the AT class/tank balance. Obviously these problems apply to the bazoka and schreck as well, but to a lesser degree.