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

Please wait...

Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#21 13 years ago

Sticky explosives if used in a realistic enviroment and with realistic characteristics would sure as hell be wanted. Lets wait and see.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#22 13 years ago
PietjeDo 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.

Fine. I have nothing against forcing infantry to attack in groups (just like tanks should have to attack in groups WITH INFANTRY SUPPORT.) Find a way to force both to happen and I will sit back, chill and be a happy non-camper.

However, nerfing infantry's ability to wreck/cripple tanks is not a way to force them to attack in groups.

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.

Look up cheap argumentation tactics online. This is one of them. Claim something way out there, then pre-empt counterarguments by predicting your counterpart will state the opposite. No, I'm neither a tank nor an infantry guy--I suck in tanks, especially heavy ones, but will use them when I occasionally feel like it or when there's nobody else around to do so. Normally, they're all immediately taken by the pantz0r weenies.

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.

Go back and read again, young padawan. Particularly the part about "I'm all for limiting AT kits or making fausts pickup-only, whatnot" (direct quote of, hey, me.) You're not getting my argument. It is that in reality, there are many ways for infantry to affect a tank's operation; FH does not currently do justice to all these, so it needs some sort of compensating mechanism until it can.

Just as tanks have a lot of unrealistic abilities (turret turn, repair, rearm, immediate entry/exit) to compensate for the fact that you can't use them as Heinz Guderian intended (groups, tons of panzer grenadiers, etc.) infantry need some unrealistic abilities to make up this deficit. And as for satchels, well, hurting infantry when they exit jeeps at 60mph is a good start; however, if you claim you're a tanker and you're letting guys get at you in open country, we shouldn't be having this argument. In the city or forest, though, all bets are and should be off.

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.

No. Right now there is a balance or power between tanks and infantry which I do not like in its current form. Elements I would love to see discussed are

-pickup-only or class limited infantry AT weaponry -no cone of fire for ironsighted zooks/fausts -realistic ammo supplies for zooks/schrecks (whatever that means) -speed-dependent injury when exiting moving jeeps (to prevent zook/satchel raiding) -tanker class restriction (you can only use primary position with a tanker kit or similar) -more AT guns, including deployable weaponry -more varied infantry AT weaponry (molotov cocktails, peeing in gas tanks, etc) -magnetic mines -satchels that can slip off -variable tank component damage (tracks, engine, etc) -tank entry/exit delay -no turbocharged wrench

Now, I know this is incomplete, so feel free to add or delete or modify or discuss or whatever, but I've gone over these, and I don't think any of them are really unrealistic or unreasonable, do you?

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.

Someone I consider a good tanker will know where the balance between camping and charging is. I dislike people who're afraid to die in tanks, as I dislike rambos who waste equipment. It's like when I move carriers; there's always a weenie faction who whines and whines because they can't take off in their precious planes, instead of grabbing a wrench or an AA gun. Ignore them.

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.

I've tried to respond to your points in a rational manner. If you point out in a reasonable, non-flaming manner to me what you're talking about, I'll be glad to discuss it. Otherwise, don't bother.

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.

Pietje, tanks are vulnerable in built-up areas. That is a fact of life. This is why mechanized infantry and panzer grenadiers were invented--if you go into a city without buddies, you should not expect to live long. Likewise, terrain isn't usually the kind of flat, featureless plane you see in El Alamein, so you can't expect there to be just some bogus artificial objective sticking up in the middle of it like a sore thumb, with no place for infantry to hide.

On the other hand, I've tried to make some constructive suggestions above that I think would make infantry/tank combat a bit more realistic, for both sides. Now stop acting so f***ing offended, it doesn't help your argument.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#23 13 years ago
FuzzyBunnyThat is a fact of life. This is why mechanized infantry and panzer grenadiers were invented...

Actually, mechanized infantry were "invented" because of the need for rapidly deployable forces. That their APCs (in these days, not during World War II) can destroy tanks at ranges of several kilometers is just a nice feature.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#24 13 years ago
USMA2010Actually, mechanized infantry were "invented" because of the need for rapidly deployable forces. That their APCs (in these days, not during World War II) can destroy tanks at ranges of several kilometers is just a nice feature.

Fair enough--I wasn't thinking of Soviet Motor Rifle divisions; more along the German model, of the school of thought that saw the need for infantry that could keep up with tanks.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#25 13 years ago

Basically the same thing. Except that the motor rifle divisions, back in World War II, would ride tanks into battle. These days they use BMP-1s, -2s, and -3s. The unlucky ones get stuck in BRDMs.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#26 13 years ago
FuzzyBunnyFine. I have nothing against forcing infantry to attack in groups (just like tanks should have to attack in groups WITH INFANTRY SUPPORT.) Find a way to force both to happen and I will sit back, chill and be a happy non-camper.

But the problem is, how are you going to do that?

However, nerfing infantry's ability to wreck/cripple tanks is not a way to force them to attack in groups.

I'm not talking about nerfing, i just dont want to see that one man army stuff is being motivated like it is now. Infact a single person seems to capable of doing more then a group.

Look up cheap argumentation tactics online. This is one of them. Claim something way out there, then pre-empt counterarguments by predicting your counterpart will state the opposite. No, I'm neither a tank nor an infantry guy--I suck in tanks, especially heavy ones, but will use them when I occasionally feel like it or when there's nobody else around to do so. Normally, they're all immediately taken by the pantz0r weenies.

Hehe. :)

Go back and read again, young padawan. Particularly the part about "I'm all for limiting AT kits or making fausts pickup-only, whatnot" (direct quote of, hey, me.) You're not getting my argument. It is that in reality, there are many ways for infantry to affect a tank's operation; FH does not currently do justice to all these, so it needs some sort of compensating mechanism until it can.

The thing is, i fear it will affect gameplay, and i fear it make tanks laughable, because people will charge at tanks without any fear whatsoever because what do you, as a infantry guy, have to loose when compared to a tanker? As far as i know nothing.

Just as tanks have a lot of unrealistic abilities (turret turn, repair, rearm, immediate entry/exit) to compensate for the fact that you can't use them as Heinz Guderian intended (groups, tons of panzer grenadiers, etc.) infantry need some unrealistic abilities to make up this deficit. And as for satchels, well, hurting infantry when they exit jeeps at 60mph is a good start; however, if you claim you're a tanker and you're letting guys get at you in open country, we shouldn't be having this argument. In the city or forest, though, all bets are and should be off.

No comment.

No. Right now there is a balance or power between tanks and infantry which I do not like in its current form. Elements I would love to see discussed are -pickup-only or class limited infantry AT weaponry -no cone of fire for ironsighted zooks/fausts -realistic ammo supplies for zooks/schrecks (whatever that means) -speed-dependent injury when exiting moving jeeps (to prevent zook/satchel raiding) -tanker class restriction (you can only use primary position with a tanker kit or similar) -more AT guns, including deployable weaponry -more varied infantry AT weaponry (molotov cocktails, peeing in gas tanks, etc) -magnetic mines -satchels that can slip off -variable tank component damage (tracks, engine, etc) -tank entry/exit delay -no turbocharged wrench Now, I know this is incomplete, so feel free to add or delete or modify or discuss or whatever, but I've gone over these, and I don't think any of them are really unrealistic or unreasonable, do you?

No, but your arguements gave me a wrong impression. Something akin to SPR, if you know what i mean.

Someone I consider a good tanker will know where the balance between camping and charging is. I dislike people who're afraid to die in tanks, as I dislike rambos who waste equipment. It's like when I move carriers; there's always a weenie faction who whines and whines because they can't take off in their precious planes, instead of grabbing a wrench or an AA gun. Ignore them.]

I consider myself to be a carefull tanker. If you know what i mean. I really dislike charging a flag like some people do. Infact most oftenly i let other people soften up the enemy a bit and then i carefully try to move up.

I've tried to respond to your points in a rational manner. If you point out in a reasonable, non-flaming manner to me what you're talking about, I'll be glad to discuss it. Otherwise, don't bother.

I apologizie for my behaviour, Fuzzy. You see i was kind of tired when i read your post and in my own stupidity i posted a little, well, too fast.

Pietje, tanks are vulnerable in built-up areas. That is a fact of life. This is why mechanized infantry and panzer grenadiers were invented--if you go into a city without buddies, you should not expect to live long. Likewise, terrain isn't usually the kind of flat, featureless plane you see in El Alamein, so you can't expect there to be just some bogus artificial objective sticking up in the middle of it like a sore thumb, with no place for infantry to hide.

Actually, Panzer Grenadiers where invented because of the need of infantry to keep up with tanks and such. Although this has been said before though. Hmm, as far as hiding places go. Isn't it possible to make it so that infantry can make foxholes? The variety in wich you can hide and shoot, not the other one, lol.

On the other hand, I've tried to make some constructive suggestions above that I think would make infantry/tank combat a bit more realistic, for both sides. Now stop acting so f***ing offended, it doesn't help your argument.

See my apologize.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#27 13 years ago

[quote=Pietje]But the problem is, how are you going to do that?[/qute]

Well, I'm hoping for a combination of small changes; I put a few ideas below. You'll not motivate people to be team players through technology; they just have to learn to do it; I'd hate to compensate for lack of teamwork or clue by technical means, though.

The thing is, i fear it will affect gameplay, and i fear it make tanks laughable, because people will charge at tanks without any fear whatsoever because what do you, as a infantry guy, have to loose when compared to a tanker? As far as i know nothing.

This is a fact of life in online gaming--as an infantry guy, you actually have a TON to lose if you rambo the tank and die, without killing him, and you lose the flag. However, see above.

Actually, Panzer Grenadiers where invented because of the need of infantry to keep up with tanks and such. Although this has been said before though.

Yeah, but _why_ do infantry need to keep up? That's my point. Normally to get rid of the dastardly swine lurking with a bazooka somewhere.

Hmm, as far as hiding places go. Isn't it possible to make it so that infantry can make foxholes? The variety in wich you can hide and shoot, not the other one, lol.

I was actually thinking more in terms of terrain variations--with rocks, trees, streams, gullies, whatever; go for a walk in a forest or open farm country and you'll see a lot of different bits and bobs to hide behind. Same with ruins. There _are_ some deserts that are just stupid flat; but again, you wouldn't have some bunker sticking out like a sore thumb as an objective in such terrain, like in many of our dear desert maps.

Don't apologize, I often get worked up when I get into arguments. After all, it's all about trying to come up with ways to make a better game, no?




Lupin

[¹2ACR]

50 XP

26th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,259 Posts

0 Threads

#28 13 years ago

Im a tanker and I am not bothered in the least about infantry with AT weapons. If you know what you are doing they dont pose a major threat.




[79th]Sgt-D

Netdahe

50 XP

6th May 2006

0 Uploads

1,951 Posts

0 Threads

#29 13 years ago

*And how about only first person seeing for both infantry and tankers? Tankers should have two ways of seeing : with heads outta the armour by opened doors = large vision, but vulnerability to small firearms/ straight combat vision for both driver and commander-shooter. At less infantry could shoot the tank less in hope of killing the crew than force them to go inside the vehicle and only get that restricted vision. But also the ability for the tanker to fire with a handgun or throw a grenade on nearby foot troopers when the tankers head is outside * Why not the Finnwars track system? The left key move the left track, idem for right size, to move on you have to press both keys... (or four squared keys: left forward-right forward-left rear-right rear so if you press left forward and right rear at the same time, the tank will do a 180° turn very quickly) *I'm ok with a pair of driver-shooter, with the full riding of the tank when the driver is alone but including less speed and rate of fire *also ok with independant damages : tracks, fuel tank, engine, etc... *idem for getting hurt when ejecting a car riding full speed *yup, performances offroad should be less effective, but like in CoD, tanks should be able to pass thru light walls, trees, etc... *troopers should deploy AT guns (and move it with vehicles). Again ok with the suggestion which gave points to a guy who helps moving the gun faster *ok too with the facts anyone ride any vehicle, he automaticly get the equipment of his vehicle class *flamethrowing a tank should hurt or kill the crew, at less blinding 'em *fumigene countermeasures should be great, both for troopers and some tanks *a fuel gauge!! *the ability for tank embedded troopers to use their weapons (idem in jeeps, like in BFV) *possibility to throw nade or Molotov into the tank. Actually, no one tank crew dared to lock the exits, they were too afraid of maybe burn alive in a locked sarcophage... *if magnetic charges are implemented, german Panzers must get Zimmerit on the low skirt, sounds fair *ability to dig antitank trenches???

[€dit]and last but not least, the number of available tanks should be accorded with the number of players on the map. A one tank for 5 or 6 players seems to be a fair (if not realistic) ratio. Like BF2 deals with the 16/32/64 players size of the map. Hate those maps where every single player is riding a tank without any ground troopers...




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#30 13 years ago

Actually most tankers a rode unbuttoned outside a combat area for better visibility, as soon as combat was engaged or they thought combat was imminent the tankers popped down and buttoned up.

Tankers usually didnt fight with the hatches unlocked for fear of infantry doing just what your describing. View ports and vents and pistol ports could also be clsoed and locked for same purpose.

Flamethrowing a tank will only damage certain tanks and then only if hitting certain areas. US tanks were vulnerable to fire only in tracks because they used rubber bushings in the tank tracks to smooth the ride and extend track and track pin life so they didnt have to be changed so often. Germans, Brits, and Russians for most part didnt seem to use rubber bushings.

The flamethrower would be more effective at burning the oxygen away if the tank wasnt buttoned up but how fast would the oxygen burn away if the tank was buttoned up tightly Im sure it would have a effect but how long would it take?

Most flamethrowers have a very limited supply of fuel.