Tanked! -1 reply

Please wait...

Hail of Nails

I want to be like Revenge

50 XP

13th June 2004

0 Uploads

376 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

Been lots of whining about tanks, one way or the other, since 0.65 came out. I personally think that 0.61 was better than 0.65, but that's unimportant since 0.65 is here to stay. That doesn't mean it that future versions can't be tweaked, so why not have a look at a few things that I believe could improve things. HE Rounds - I can't fathom why these haven't made it in yet. If one man with an AT is capable of destroying a whole tank, well, then that tank should be able to take out five or six of his friends in a single shot full of shrapnel. A quick switch toggle, like in the 88mm Flak would be great. If you see a pesky engineer gunning for you, you won't have to shoot the ground at his feet to send him flying. You'll just shoot in his general direction, and let the shell do the rest. Given the extreme effectiveness of AT, I think these rounds are a bare necessity to prevent tanks from all becoming steel coffins. Some people may say "But with an HE round, infantry stands no change against a tank!". And well, that's one of the reasons tanks exist. Infantry will still have their greatly effective AT weapons to protect them, and the off-chance the tank driver forgot to switch his shells. Tank Speed - I believe it was Driver who wanted tanks to be faster an infantry to be slower. While I don't think infantry should be messed with, tank speed might use just a little increase. A Panzer IV, in most of its incarnations, had a max speed of about 40 kph, but an average Cross Country speed of around 20 kph. 20 kph is at least twice as fast as the average encumbered soldier's sustained jogging speed, and yet a soldier can keep pretty good pace with a Panzer IV. Increase tank speed, so tank can roll on our more quickly across the battlefield. BUT, decrease tank acceleration, so tanks don't have such a jump start, like they do now. No matter how many horsepower you're packing, getting a 20 ton tank rolling isn't a quick affair. Secondly, give tanks a throttle similar to aircraft, so that they can choose a speed to go, and stick with it, so if tanks want to advance all at once, the faster tanks can match the speed of the slower tanks, or match the speed of infantry. While the feature may not always be used, it will be very nice to have. Tanksights - Is Zoom not available for tanks? Is it possible to make the tank-sight key toggle between different levels of zoom, instead of just back and forth between the tanksight and driver viewport? And also, can the default view when you enter into a tank is the tanksight, because the driver viewport isn't all that useful.... Top-Mounted MG - Someone suggested a while back that this position be made not to turn in the event the tank turrent turns. That way the tank turret turning will not disrupt the aim of the MG, so he might actually stand more of a chance against infantry that always snipe the MGers straight out of their spots. I believe the concern was that it would look silly... but does anyone know how silly it actually looks? That's all for now.




Krazy Kommando

=2AIF=

50 XP

21st September 2004

0 Uploads

558 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

great ideas! i wanna see them all included! however with the dank views, the drives normal cam is very usefull because it gives you a view double the size of the tank sights. i usually only use the tank sights with longer range tank battles, because in close-medium distances the tanks shot always goes into the middle of the screen anyway (estimate where the middle is, and u get a greater view)




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

I completly agree with all of the above! it would make FH much more fun AND realistic! Those are good ideas man!

*hopes for a dev to look at the thread*




D-Fens

uwe bolltastic!

50 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

4,837 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

Tank speeds- Great Idea!




MkH^

FH tester

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

2,286 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

Hail of Nails Secondly, give tanks a throttle similar to aircraft, so that they can choose a speed to go, and stick with it, so if tanks want to advance all at once, the faster tanks can match the speed of the slower tanks, or match the speed of infantry. While the feature may not always be used, it will be very nice to have.

You can also sustain slower speeds with groundvehicles too by configuring pedals (or similar game controller) to forward / reverse slots. Very handy. Although, not many people own such devices, and even if they did, they wouldn't bother/couldn't configure them to work in BF probably. I however love using pedals instead of keyboard when in tank. Infantry can hold up much better, the AA machinegunner can actually hit something and it's a lot easier to aim with the maingun while moving. You can also stop slower and more stabile, preventing the tank from rocking for few seconds as they tend to do.

Anyway, I like that suggestion. The question however is, how many public players would actually bother to go slower speeds, because of such thing as "infantry support". Good idea nonetheless.

Top-Mounted MG - Someone suggested a while back that this position be made not to turn in the event the tank turrent turns. That way the tank turret turning will not disrupt the aim of the MG, so he might actually stand more of a chance against infantry that always snipe the MGers straight out of their spots. I believe the concern was that it would look silly... but does anyone know how silly it actually looks?

http://www.gamingforums.com/showthread.php?t=123095

Would it look silly? Not at all. If properly implemented, it's hardly noticable, except for the gunner, who's now more than just an easy target. In EoD the tank hatches don't move accodring to the turret, but that's a really small price to pay for so much improved gaming experience. I like all your suggestions. Nothing but improvements there, hope they all get implemented. Good job.




Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago
Hail of Nails And also, can the default view when you enter into a tank is the tanksight, because the driver viewport isn't all that useful....

What if they moved the default camera to the top of the turret, and disabled the external cameras? That way, you would have the same visibility as a tank commander when driving around, then drop to the sight when the crap hits the fan. Due to the relation between that moved camera and the gun axis, you could only really hipshoot at close range, or using splash vs. infantry. (which IMO should be increased) Don't know if that's possible though. True, you wouldn't be able to snipe the commander, but is that such a big deal?




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

Like in the Stug? I like that idea, but make it a seperate position, and allow him to call in artillery support ala XWW2.




Dee-Jaý

Always 1 point ahead of you

50 XP

17th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,694 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago

Eventhough I dont tank as much as others do, I do agree to all of the suggested changes above: -HE shells: Its a good idea and I believe its possible to do. However, at the moment, tanks shells are a combination between HE and AT shells. So while HE shells should be pretty effective vs. Infantry (like a grenade), AT shells shouldn´t have much affect (only a direct hit would kill). -Tank Speed: I to agree that tanks could use a general speed boost. I´m not thinking anything along the lines of BG42, but an additional 20% speed would seem fair. It would also be pretty cool if tanks could travel faster across roads then cross country. -Tank zoom: I think it would be cool if the tank sight were slightly zoomed in. But it might make aiming a bit harder... -Mounted MGs really should turn indipenantly from the turret. They´re close to useless anyway and could do with improved handling.




Hail of Nails

I want to be like Revenge

50 XP

13th June 2004

0 Uploads

376 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

Right. HE Shells were made to kill infantry, and could kill anyone within a 10m or so radius of the explosion. They weren't at all good for piercing, as the Germans' tactic in the forest was to aim HE shells at the trees over enemy troops, and the shrapnel would be spread over a farther distance with the added height. So the round wouldn't even go through a tree. It was made to explode. I think the effect would be rather like the Allied AA in-game, the one where if you accidentally shoot the sandbag in front of you, it kills you. The little cloud of death. The AT rounds were, of course, for piercing armor, and had little to no blast radius. Shooting one of these things at the ground in front of an enemy soldier would just put a rather sizable hole in the ground, and may kick up a few clods of dirt and dust, but won't harm the infantry to any great degree like the HE shell. The shells in game currently, like D-Fens said, are a sort of mix, but are primarily the AT shells made for piercing.




[tR]Mad Mac

Aerospace Engineering FTW!

50 XP

19th May 2004

0 Uploads

1,242 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

I agree, but you shouldnt be able to instantly switch from AT/HE rounds. You should have to fire out whatever is loaded in the barrel before you can change to the other type.