Panzerschrek -1 reply

Please wait...

Exel

The stubborn Finn

50 XP

25th March 2004

0 Uploads

542 Posts

0 Threads

#21 16 years ago

The lack of infantry also works the other way around: there aren't as many anti-tank infantry to counter a single tank as there would be in real life. The tank-infantry ratio in FH is way off, and there's nothing that can't be done about it unless we want FH to be a pure infantry game like DoD.




Arisaka

Staff suffers from PCD

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

1,495 Posts

0 Threads

#22 16 years ago

Myrddraal1. Not enough players. Even 32 players on a team is not enough to realistically cover vehicles properly

[...]

You also forgot that in real life 1/3rd of the people on a battlefield weren't AT troopers.

As number of players go down, the relative amount of AT needed to make them effective goes up. a team of two working on four different flags (defence or attack) (not unrealistic). 8/32 = 25%

The ratio is distorted too easily. even a 100% ratio could be realistic under the right circumstances, despite the real ratio being far lower. using ratio is completely flawed!

I do agree with the immobilization idea so long as the shot is at a good angle (if I remember correctly the BF engine does take angle into effect). It is really to bad that a way has not been figured out to get the counter measures to work.

FH takes it into greater consideration than BF. bf simply uses the cosine. FH also takes into consideration whether or not it would be able to penetrate at that angle.




Myrddraal

Search function? Where?

50 XP

28th April 2004

0 Uploads

669 Posts

0 Threads

#23 16 years ago
ArisakaAs number of players go down, the relative amount of AT needed to make them effective goes up. a team of two working on four different flags (defence or attack) (not unrealistic). 8/32 = 25% The ratio is distorted too easily. even a 100% ratio could be realistic under the right circumstances, despite the real ratio being far lower. using ratio is completely flawed![/QUOTE] You are correct that ratios are required to be inaccurate due to simple numbers, but I will point out that it is all due to the scaling of the game and this scaling also effects damage. [QUOTE=Arisaka]FH takes it into greater consideration than BF. bf simply uses the cosine. FH also takes into consideration whether or not it would be able to penetrate at that angle.

Then what I say is pay much more attention to the maximum angles of attack for the shaped charge weapons. Grazing shots get kills far to often as is.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

29th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#24 16 years ago

The topic is kinda swaying here...

All I am asking for is that Bazookas, Panzerschreks, Panzerfausts, and PIATs do realistic damage.

And this whole everyone AT thing could be solved with a taboo two word set up... Class Limits. Of course not for Panzerfausts, but definatly for the reloadable weapons.

As the British commander in Arnhem said when a Tiger tried to cross the Rhine in A Bridge too Far, "Bring up the PIAT". Note lack of an 's' after the word PIAT.




Arisaka

Staff suffers from PCD

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

1,495 Posts

0 Threads

#25 16 years ago

the class limit for panzerschreck is already in - pickup kits (most maps, anyway). that is unfortunately the best solution to date, as class limits (still) affects all maps. another solution that i would also see implemented for a couple of maps is the mission series-style, where all spawn points are dynamic, and you can only spawn with the very most basic weapons. APC's can then drop a huge set of kits, depending on map, etc.

if possible it would perhaps be nice to have shaped charges use cosine squared to calculate damage, instead of simply cosine. it would penalise higher angles more than simply cosine.




the_M6D_legend

7.62mm...full...metal...j acket

50 XP

27th July 2004

0 Uploads

243 Posts

0 Threads

#26 16 years ago
'[11PzG USMA2010']The topic is kinda swaying here... All I am asking for is that Bazookas, Panzerschreks, Panzerfausts, and PIATs do realistic damage. And this whole everyone AT thing could be solved with a taboo two word set up... Class Limits. Of course not for Panzerfausts, but definatly for the reloadable weapons. As the British commander in Arnhem said when a Tiger tried to cross the Rhine in A Bridge too Far, "Bring up the PIAT". Note lack of an 's' after the word PIAT.

but thats a movie....




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

29th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#27 16 years ago

Yeah, but still. The Brits didn't employ PIATs like Panzerfausts. Remember the detachment in Arnhem was not equipped to take on Panzers.




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#28 16 years ago

ExelThe schrek would penetrate Churchill's side armor even if it had half the damage it actually did. Which means that FH has nerfed it down by more than 1/2. Like Hartmann said. 60mm penetration for the schrek is close to being ridicilous - it could penetrate well over 200mm in reality and even the bazooka penetrated over 100mm.

The stupidity of tankers shouldn't be compensated by nerfing AT weapons below the requirements of scaling them to the engine.

The Panzerschreck will damage anything up to 200mm, but it will only kill in one shot when it hits something with 60mm or less. That's a difference.




Exel

The stubborn Finn

50 XP

25th March 2004

0 Uploads

542 Posts

0 Threads

#29 16 years ago

One more thing about limiting the AT weapons: You can't apply any real life anti-tank to non-AT infantry ratio in FH, since the ratio between tanks and infantry is also WAY off. If realistic troop type ratios were used, we wouldn't see a single tank on most of the maps. While it is true that in reality not every infantryman carried an anti-tank weapon, it is also true that in some situations there may well have been 32 anti-tankers against, say, 8 tanks - a number which is present on many of the maps. There simply aren't enough players on any given FH battlefield to justify strict real life class ratios. The players have to fill in for the missing numbers by choosing the kit best fit for the given situation. At one time they may all be riflemen while at another half of them may be carrying fausts while the other half rush with SMGs in close quarters.

Major HartmannThe Panzerschreck will damage anything up to 200mm, but it will only kill in one shot when it hits something with 60mm or less. That's a difference.

I see. But it's still not right. In reality there is no such medium ground for anti-tank weapons where they penetrate but cause only limited damage. They pretty much either don't penetrate, or penetrate and kill or at the very least effectively disable the tank (or part of it's functions). Of course scaling the reality to the game engine may require giving the weapons some such intermediate damage because it doesn't allow realistic penetration and damage models, but in this case the difference (from 200mm to 60mm) may be too big. I mean, with real life dynamics, if the Panzerfaust penetrated the armor - up to over 200mm - it could also destroy the target. Reducing it's kill effect to some 30% of the original and having 70% of it's true power dealt only partially feels wrong imho. It might be better of this numbers were flipped around - though that's just a wild guess from a person who does not know the ratio the other stuff has been scaled down with.




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

29th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#30 16 years ago

People who say the damage for fausts etc should be upped don't really play with tanks it seems. Why on earth should the fausts, shrecks etc do "realistic" amount of damage, when the tanks don't do realistic damage either, even to infantry? Not to mention EVERYONE is running around with AT kits. Tanks are already on the mercy of the endless swarms of AT infantry. At the point where AT infantry does realistic damage to tanks but not vice versa, something's REALLY fucked up.

What I mean with that is that AT weapons weren't exactly every soldier's standard-issue equipment, like it is in the game. Also, a tank's HE shell would basically easily kill running infantry within, say, 30m radius on an open field. In the game I've shot within 5m of a soldier, and he's taken NO damage. If you'd make infantry AT projectiles as strong as in real life, but not tank's HE capabilities, you can just as well remove tanks from the game on most maps - especially since, as said, it's a lot easier to deal damage with these AT weapons than it is in real life, single it does damage even at an angle. And USMA said to give PaK40s realistic damage values too. Sure, but also make it die from a single hit from a tank gun - ANY tank gun! Nothing like hitting it dead on with a Sherman only to die from it firing back since it didn't die!