We will have sticky explosives in fh2 to end with the tanks? -1 reply

Please wait...

Meadow

You might very well think that

50 XP

21st February 2004

0 Uploads

3,000 Posts

0 Threads

#11 13 years ago

USMA2010Oh hell no...

Magical sappers running around silently spreading pixidust charges all over tanks without making any sound at all. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?

It happens in WWII Online, and everybody who drives a vehicle hates it.

We have infantry anti-armor weapons like the PIAT and Panzerfaust coming, that is bloody good enough.

NO!

Tanker n00b. Bring infantry support next time.

:P I may have stopped playing, but I still know the jargon.




caeno

Yeah.

50 XP

9th August 2003

0 Uploads

410 Posts

0 Threads

#12 13 years ago

Usmas worries would be solved with a soundfile. When you attach the bomb to something, it makes a sound that the tanker/driver/anyone inside can hear. So long to your fears about that... Simple.




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#13 13 years ago

Yeah, Infantry AT weapons need to be hit with a nerfbat.. But in exchange tanks need to be made clunkier, as they are already getting a huge boost in fh2 (actual HE rounds ala FH1942 wespe).

What you will end up with is fearsome, durable tanks that infantry have difficulty dealing with, while at the same time not overpowering because they are slower (turret, turning and acceleration).




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#14 13 years ago

PietjeYou mean realistic as in toning them down? Yes, Fuzzy, thats a great idea. Infact, i like your idea. :)

In real life it was be rather difficult to destroy a tank with satchels or for that matter any other HE based infantry weapon. Thats is why army's started to develop HEAT based weapons.

Agreed. However, I hope satchels are _not_ nerfed until there's some "compensating mechanism"--i.e. currently in FH I'm too limited by weapons availability and the engine to use anything but "designated" methods for killing a tank, which is unrealistic. In real life, I'd probably run like hell, but that not being an option, I'd do anything I could to stop the bastard, including shooting in the vision slit, peeing in the tank, jumping on top and yelling "ABSPRINGEN!", shoving a crowbar into the tracks, pulling down my pants and taunting him, whatever. Until I'm more flexible in the tools I can use to kill/stop tanks, Satchels are a necessary stop-gap measure.

Let's not forget that a sizeable portion of Elefants at Kursk fell prey to infantry swarming over them and doing god-knows-what (and I don't think they all had RPGs or bazookas or whatever.)

Actually, i got a idea aswell. Lets add Zimmerit. However,i do believe satchels should be primarely intended for demolition purposes. Not for AT purposes.

Totally agreed. However, it would seem like a bit of a waste unless we have more destructible terrain (bunkers, houses, etc.)

And I'd _love_ molotov cocktails (see above.)




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#15 13 years ago

I know for fact that atleast the Russians used magnetic mines and placed them on Elefants to destroy them because the Ele didn't have a MG at the time. I wouldn't mind seeing some of these improvised or rare weapons put into the game as pick-up kits. Such as Magnetic mines, a few sticky bombs here and there, some moltov cocktails, along with S-Mines and other anti-personnel mines. Don't make a large number of them but just a pick up kit here and there.

How about tank seeking dogs for the Russians too? (Just kidding)

Another idea if it is possible for making tanking more dangerous in cities(but only if the AT weapons are more deadly to their users) I've read stories where in Russia the Russians would knock down the wall in front of a tank to stop it, then knock down one in back of it to trap it, then pour gasoline on the tank and throw anything flamable on it and turn it into a barbacue. Maybe somehow the script used on bridges could make walls that fall when a certain explosive(satchels) are used on them, blocking the road to vehicles. Then a bunch of molvtov cocktails palced in the building sends the tank to it's doom.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#16 13 years ago
FuzzyBunnyAgreed. However, I hope satchels are _not_ nerfed until there's some "compensating mechanism"--i.e. currently in FH I'm too limited by weapons availability and the engine to use anything but "designated" methods for killing a tank, which is unrealistic. In real life, I'd probably run like hell, but that not being an option, I'd do anything I could to stop the bastard, including shooting in the vision slit, peeing in the tank, jumping on top and yelling "ABSPRINGEN!", shoving a crowbar into the tracks, pulling down my pants and taunting him, whatever. Until I'm more flexible in the tools I can use to kill/stop tanks, Satchels are a necessary stop-gap measure.

I'm sorry Fuzzybunny, but i do not under any circumstances do i want to see things like this. And im dead serious when i say this. Believe me i am absolutly NOT KIDDING. If it does however get in then i suggest you remove the realism title of FH and change it to arcade. Because it would a insult to call FH a realism mod then. Or i suggest you increase the power of tanks as its rather unrealistic that every single infantry guy can deal with tanks. Its very simple really. AT guns are number 1 tank stoppers so to speak. Then AT infantry. If both fail then i all i gotta say is: Too bad, your out of luck, better start running!

Let's not forget that a sizeable portion of Elefants at Kursk fell prey to infantry swarming over them and doing god-knows-what (and I don't think they all had RPGs or bazookas or whatever.)

Dont forget that alot of infantry got mown down by tanks. And thats a lot more realistic then John Terminator who destroys 10000's of tanks all by himself. Wich is the kind of thing you will undoubtly see when your idea gets in. All of these examples of you are entirely irrational as infantry doesnt give a damn if they live or die. Until you do something to change that you will see things that are so unrealistic that it makes me want to cry.

I hope you dont see my post as a insult, but believe me when this idea gets in FH is gonna go down hill. Because on ridicilous idea will follow another. Believe me you will get someone else who suggest that Joe Schmoe the Rifleman suddenly gets AT weapons when he spawns.

Totally agreed. However, it would seem like a bit of a waste unless we have more destructible terrain (bunkers, houses, etc.) And I'd _love_ molotov cocktails (see above.)

I wouldnt mind seeing it. IF they get their disadvantages aswell! I cannot stress that enough.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#17 13 years ago
PietjeI'm sorry Fuzzybunny, but i do not under any circumstances do i want to see any form of rambo shit. And im dead serious when i say this. Believe me i am absolutly NOT KIDDING. And your suggestion happens to fall in the catagory: Rambo, unrealistic.

Sorry bud, tell that to the masses of Japanese infantry who threw themselves at tanks with bombs strapped to their backs ("banzai charge" ring a bell?) or Soviets mowed down in human wave attacks. I don't see how being able to stop a tank at all costs all of a sudden makes it "arcade"; let me give you a tip: war is a bloody, horrible, ugly affair, full of hand-to-hand garden utensil combat, Red Chunky Goo (tm) and exploding heads, not some English garden party where after tea we go pick up our bazookas like civilized people.

Its very simple really. AT guns are number 1 tank stoppers so to speak. Then AT infantry. If both fail then i all i gotta say is: Too bad, your out of luck, better start running!

Until FH is able to add more realism in terms of tank damage (blown up treads, crippled engines, Red Chunky Goo (tm) smeared across tank gunsights, etc., crippling AT infantry is the wrong way to go. When infantry capabilities are more flexible, then yes.

Dont forget that alot of infantry got mown down by tanks. And thats a lot more realistic then John Terminator who destroys 10000's of tanks all by himself. Wich is the kind of thing you will undoubtly see when your idea gets in.

Remarkable bit of sophistry that all of a sudden we're talking about "10000's of tanks" when all I was referring to was a hope that tanks wouldn't be made invincible by taking away the realistic capability of infantry to stop it. I'm all for limiting AT kits or making fausts pickup-only, whatnot. However, there are more ways than one to skin a cat...er...stop a tank.

Oh and all of these examples of you are entirely irrational as infantry doesnt give a damn if they live or die. Until you do something to change that you will see things that are so unrealistic that it makes me want to cry.

You mean like a single KT walking into a flag without infantry support, with 10 enemy infantry around, running in circles, screaming "oh n0es! A PANTZ0R! RUN!" because they have no AT gun or bazooka handy? Here's a tip: a tank can only shoot in so many directions at once.

All we're talking about is balance, young padawan. Balance is good. Gameplay is good.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#18 13 years ago
FuzzyBunnySorry bud, tell that to the masses of Japanese infantry who threw themselves at tanks with bombs strapped to their backs ("banzai charge" ring a bell?) or Soviets mowed down in human wave attacks. I don't see how being able to stop a tank at all costs all of a sudden makes it "arcade"; let me give you a tip: war is a bloody, horrible, ugly affair, full of hand-to-hand garden utensil combat, Red Chunky Goo (tm) and exploding heads, not some English garden party where after tea we go pick up our bazookas like civilized people.

Do you think i know nothing of war, fuzzy? Tanks moved up in groups. You on the other make it sound as if tanks attacked individually. And as if every single infantry soldier destroyed tanks daily.

Like i said before selective realism. Adding the things you like but leaving out the things that might be a disadvantage for infantry. Such things happen too oftenly on these forums.

In either case i do not change my opinion regarding AT weapons.

Until FH is able to add more realism in terms of tank damage (blown up treads, crippled engines, Red Chunky Goo (tm) smeared across tank gunsights, etc., crippling AT infantry is the wrong way to go. When infantry capabilities are more flexible, then yes.

Wrong. Infact if you go that way, tanks will become unrealisticly weak. Ofcourse you probably dont care, afterall your a infantry guy, right? Let me gues im gonna hear stories on how your a tanker and all. Yeah well i dont believe that.

Crippling AT infantry? What are you talking about? Oh, the fact that not every single infantry guy spawns with a AT weapon? Yeah, well, thats the reality Fuzzy. Infact i even came up with alot of suggestions for making AT weapons more usefull, but its fascinating how you apparantly seem to forgive that every single time.

Remarkable bit of sophistry that all of a sudden we're talking about "10000's of tanks" when all I was referring to was a hope that tanks wouldn't be made invincible by taking away the realistic capability of infantry to stop it. I'm all for limiting AT kits or making fausts pickup-only, whatnot. However, there are more ways than one to skin a cat...er...stop a tank.

You simply do not understand me, do you? Tanks arent invincible. However you make it sound as if infantry are struggling to deal with tanks. They arent.

Realistic? Selective realism, you mean. Oh and the 10000's was meant figurally. But you could have figured that out by yourself. Wich you probably did. It sad really that you try to provoke me like that. I have nothing against you but this sort of thing i simply consider to be lame.

You mean like a single KT walking into a flag without infantry support, with 10 enemy infantry around, running in circles, screaming "oh n0es! A PANTZ0R! RUN!" because they have no AT gun or bazooka handy? Here's a tip: a tank can only shoot in so many directions at once.

Apparantly it doesnt matter what you do as a tanker because you cant do anything right. Provide support for your team and your a camper. Go in by yourself because your team is no where to be seen and your a rambo'er. Try and help your team and you are suddenly a noob tanker because you dont do exactly as they say.

And Fuzzy, dont act as if you dont know what i mean. I have said it before and i say it one more times. I dont like that sort of behaviour.

All we're talking about is balance, young padawan. Balance is good. Gameplay is good.

In favor of infantry? Predictable. Thats a great idea give every single infantry guy the possibility to destroy a tank all by himself. Oh and what do we tankers get? Giving every single infantry AT capabilites is a BIG change if you ask me. So its no more then logical to balance it out for us tankers. Oh, and Fuzzy, something that actually helps us tankers.




trasius

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

8th May 2006

0 Uploads

14 Posts

0 Threads

#19 13 years ago

i thick that the demolition chargues of fh must to be sticky explosives




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#20 13 years ago

'LIGHTNING [NL']Both were not used in Africa though.

I also thing there is a need for Molotov Cocktails.[/quote]

That's what anti-tank rifles, molotovs, and anti-tank grenades are for mate! Hopefully the dev guys will be able to recreate area damage (like lighting up a fuel tank or the ammo stores) and crew deaths. That I have no problem with. But infantry running around by themselves tossing magical charges on everyone in a vehicle is plain retarded.

[quote=Meadow] Tanker n00b. Bring infantry support next time. :P I may have stopped playing, but I still know the jargon.

Ahem? N00b?

:smack:

I try to carry as much infantry with me as a T-34 commander rolling along in 1944. Often they won't come, bloody bastards think they don't need armor support. Of course, they are the same morons who always run straight at AI emplacements and tanks.