Satchel charges = the new ex-pack? -1 reply

Please wait...

Hail of Nails

I want to be like Revenge

50 XP

13th June 2004

0 Uploads

376 Posts

0 Threads

#71 14 years ago
Beast of WarWell, what Lobo says - making the panzerfaust player a real AT class with 3 panzerfausts ( 3 shots just like the other AT class ) but remove the rifle and make them vulnerable to (normal) infantry - makes a lot of sense to me too....... Every class should have it's achilles heel and the current panzerfaust class has none, while the allied AT class is very vulnerable to infantry attack ( as they should be ) With 3 panzerfausts the AT class will even be deadlier to tanks, but if too many players choose that class they risk being overrun by enemy infantry. Now the real panzerfaust carrying infantry indeed had a rifle - or even MP or assault rifles - but you have to balance them out in so they are not distrubing gameplay. I would have given them a pistol, just like the other AT classes, despite the panzerfaust being much lighter......the damage it deals is already far more lethal then the other AT classes. Giving them 3 Panzerfausts to carry and a pistol is what i think a very acceptable choice. Afterall real bazooka carrying troops for sure often had a carabine or thompson aswell, and not only a pistol.......you would happily carry some extra weight if that could save your life in unexpected situations. If you shoot a tank with a bazooka, and the crew survived they will come out with MP's in their hands.......( german tanks had lockers with a few MP's wich could also shoot through pistol ports in the tank to kill infantry close to the tank ) If you only had a bazooka when the german crew comes out with MP's, you have a problem i imagine.....So they not having any better then a pistol is just as reasonable as panzerfaust class only having a pistol. ( at least when they have 3 panzerfausts ) If this solution is not chosen, then there is no alternative then to limit the amount of players that can be panzerfaust troops.

BoW usually has good ideas, here is no different. However, I believe that the AT classes should still bear some resemblance to realism, and have their own light arms, be they carbines or SMGs, just with reduced ammo count, so soldiers can't go forever in the field without having to re-arm. Sitting in a base, it only makes sense that a soldier would be able to use a Bazooka on an incoming tank, and then grab a rifle laying about to take care of Infantry. This would not make the AT into an uberclass if the SMG aiming bug (I'm pretty sure that exists after I was repeatedly owned at long range my an MP18, the effective range of most SMGs is 100m right?). The Carbines already are toned down from the M1 Carbine, which seems to be better than the Garand sometimes. If Engineers get Carbines, I don't see why AT shouldn't. Engineers can still do Anti-tank with Satchels, and can repair as well. AT wouldn't be any more of a Rambo than Engineers are, and with the Satchels and Carbines, engineers aren't much of a Rambo.




Sgt. DinkyDuck

Addicted to GF

50 XP

10th November 2003

0 Uploads

267 Posts

0 Threads

#72 14 years ago

I have no fears of the Faust class, As a tanker i fear most the rouge engi with sachels. Since i prefer to use the stuG than any other axis tank, its very very very very very very vunerable. not only is there a lack of turret, but with its limited view, it cannot see the rouge engi comin in for an attack. The stuG was not a front line tank, and there fore i use it off the front line for fire support. if i do see the engi, and manage to escape my tank to get him, he runs off with my tank. so whats a tanker supposed to do? no defense against this sort of attack. people dont like sitting in the "suiside" gun on the tank, they get picked off quick, and the stugs only covers the front of the tank. Ive only used the stuG maybe a few times on vegitation maps because of its sure fire lack of defence, its worse than the wespe now. the sachel charges should do less damage if they are kep t in a spawnable kit. just enough to damage the tanks and slow them down from the assult. to give the true AT class a chance to set up shop and defend.




Lobo

All your base are belong to FH

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

6,883 Posts

0 Threads

#73 14 years ago

Forget this idea boys, it will never find its way to FH, give AT's a carabine or mg and all the people will choose that class.




Hail of Nails

I want to be like Revenge

50 XP

13th June 2004

0 Uploads

376 Posts

0 Threads

#74 14 years ago

I don't see that many people choosing the Rifle/Faust class as it is. The only map I see AT going en masse is Arnhem, because everyone can score a shot at the Nazis coming across the Bridge.




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#75 14 years ago
Hail of NailsI don't see that many people choosing the Rifle/Faust class as it is. The only map I see AT going en masse is Arnhem, because everyone can score a shot at the Nazis coming across the Bridge.

Well you are wrong.....

Falaise Pocket and Op. Nordwind are examples of not a good place to be in a tank. When you attack in a tank - no matter if accompanied by infantry or not - your tank is destroyed rediculous fast and without a fighting chance from Panzerfaust hits ( and from a considerable distance ! ) out of bushes that are everywhere. If you go near flags and houses even faster.

When you decide to live longer then that you will have to keep a firm distance from bush lines and flags wich severely limits where you can go in a map, but when you do that your tank not close supporting the infantry as a weapon is inefficient and mostly useless. And on top of that if you are not mobile - keep moving all the time - you *will* be satchel charged.

In fact one panzerfaust soldier is equal in strenght to a King Tiger ! He can with one shot destroy almost all tanks, and he has anti infantry capability with his rifle. Now suppose there are 20 players running around with a panzerfaust kit.....that means 20 King Tigers to allied tanks ! .....do you think you have any chance in an allied tank against that ?

With another tank you often need 3 shots to front armour of another tank to kill it, but a panzerfaust kills it in 1 shot. A tank has better range, but in maps with hills and bushes range is worthless, you can't use that. The range of a panzerfaust in such maps is more then enough. So to kill enemy tanks a smart player would not take a tank but AT infantry class.

Wich makes tanks utterly useless......panzerfaust infantry is more lethal then a tank, panzerfaust infantry is stealthier then a tank, panzerfaust infantry can kill other infantry on even odds ( rifle is a powerfull all round weapon, even in close combat ) panzerfaust infantry is more far more survivable then a tank, panzerfaust infantry can go much faster through rough terrain ( hills ) panzerfaust infantry can hide in structures......

Tanks are so nerfed ( they should have HE fragmentation grenades with 15 m blast radius ) they have a hard time killing 1 infantry soldier before he launches his weapon, and utterly fail to kill a group of infantry before they launch their weapon........infantry laughs at tanks, they are cheap kills.

In other words.....panzerfaust infantry is a super elite soldier......Rambo would be jealous !

This however is not a rant panzerfaust infantry is too strong, but that this class/kit is so powerfull that if too many players chose this kit ( and they do in said maps ) it completely destroys all fun, purpose and realism of driving a tank. It is nothing more then a target on a target range.

This kit should be changed ( if only in some maps with a lot of infantry cover ) so it will be vulnerable to some kind of weapon.......Lobo suggested giving it 3 Panzerfausts and no rifle, wich just like other AT classes would make it vulnerable to regular infantry wich now panzerfaust infantry is not. The other option is limit it in availability, so not all or half the enemy team is carrying panzerfausts.

And ofcourse tanks need their HE fragmentation grenades with 15 m blast radius, else they can't even deal with more then 1 enemy soldier ! And if it can't deal with a group of infantry, it isn't a tank.

I know there are devs that hate vehicles with a passion, but then why go through all the hours of work making beautifull models, skins and code for them ? To explode running into the first infantry soldier they see ?

I think no one really protested yet because 90 % of all players are infantry oriented players. And with weapons like the panzerfaust i am too, as said earlier you are a King Tiger on foot with it, and that rifle......one shot kil capability at all ranges.....leading the shot a bit and it is even the deadliest weapon close combat.

But that doesn't make this situation right, the situation (even heavy ) tanks should flee on contact with infantry.......or be destroyed without a chance. FH had the reputation to be more realististic then vanilla bf or BG42. In almost all aspects that is true, except when it comes to tanks vs infantry.




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#76 14 years ago

I think part of the problems is that the at-weapons have a very high succues rate. In rl, however much effective these things COULD be, they often did not perform. I think problems crop in gameplay anytime rl drawbacks are removed in the name of balance. If in rl people had a k98 and a faust, fine thats how it can be in game but there are advanteges enjoyed that are not real: Everyone in the army can have a faust- no way not everybody could carry one. Success rate, these things failed to work as inteded more often then depicted. Fausts were somtimes used as ap nade. If youve seen footage of them being fired you see what I mean. There anti-personel potentioal is underated. The bazzokas ap power is also underated, there shoudl be at least some splash damage. Backblast made recouiless weapons much harder to use, they could not be fired with your back to a wall, or enclosed spaces, and other solders could be hurt by backblast. Beast I with much of what you say there. Tanks ap potential is nerfed by a lack of proper he shells. On the other hand it was not so wasy to snipe people with the cannons coaxial mg. Also the hatch mg man's power is nerfed by him standing so tall out of the hatch. I think satchels or ok as there comprable to assorted magenetic mines, sticky explosives, etc. used by various armies. I also like the smoke effect. I do think they do to much damage as most tanks were pretty resielent to he expolsions. (though not invunerable, obvuosly he bombs CAN be quite effective)




Ronin Pedroshin

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

13th June 2004

0 Uploads

878 Posts

0 Threads

#77 14 years ago

I'm not sure if it is the satchel that is too weak or the tank armor that is too thick but I placed both 5 sec and 10 sec satchels on top of a PantherD and that only made him start with dark grey smoke. Plus I tked 2 teammates... I think it would be a good idea to make the "fire in the hole" scream play all the time :\. Anyways I'll test it again on a created server to confirm it tomorrow.




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#78 14 years ago

Terminal-Strike, your post bring me to something i knew but totally overlooked all this time......Jackal will hate this......maybe it is even what you meant with "panzerfausts were not always effective"

The hell they were not.....they were even largely useless, and i suddenly remembered why.

Once shaped charge anti tank weapons emerged and were painfully effective against tanks, counter measures were desperatly searched for. This lead to a number of simple but quitte efficent solutions.

The plasma jet of molten material that is formed at the tip of a shaped charge projectile does not discriminate what it cut's trough....it will even cut through air. The lenght of how far that plasma jet will go through material is however very limited. Therefore you could defeat it by letting it burn up before it reached the actual armour of the tank.

Russians were known to use simple chicken wire spaced out some cm distance from their tank's side.......shape charge weapons would then ignite and burn most of it's charge through air ( space between the chicke wire and tank's side ) and not have enough plasma jet left to burn through the armour of the tank.

British were known to use parts of tracks attached to their tank's side as extra layer of material for the shaped charge to waste it's plasma jet on.

Americans often favored a layer of cement to do the same job, but also used parts of tracks.

Other solutions were attaching logs to the sides of the tank, and the germans we all know used spaced armour plates. ( seen on some model Panzer IV in game )

Shaped charge weapons were utterly useless against tanks that were prepared for them. This is not included into FH !

That is why tanks and anti tank cannons were still the most important anti tank weapon there was late in the war......cement, logs, parts of track and chickenwire does not stop high velocity cannon AP grenades......that makes tanks, tank destroyers and field guns have a real purpose again, wich they do not have if infantry is far better at killing tanks. Historically seen they never were.....first because the anti tank rifles were inadequate, and later because shaped charge weapons could easily be defeated.

I already wondered how tanks could be enemy line breakthrough units if they just can be taken out by the first enemy infantry soldier they run into.

Ofcourse hell freezes over sooner then that some vehicle hating devs even consider making vehicles in FH historically correct. We have seen this in rediculous nerfed main guns vs infantry ( should be HE fragmentation grenade with a blast area of at least 15 m ) and i doubt we shall see it in most of the time failing infantry shaped charge launchers......and that is what happend.