Tank vs tank combat in FH2: Penetration changes due to range? -1 reply

Please wait...

LordKhaine

I sing the body electric...

50 XP

5th October 2003

0 Uploads

612 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

I recall that in FH1 it isn't possible to change the penetration a shell does at different distances, only the damage done? Is this still the case in FH2? Because it has some real disadvantages, and skews the balance a fair bit.

As it stands some armies (mostly allies for what it matters) are at a real disadvantage due to this. Take the Americans for instance, the Sherman is basically useless for headon tank combat, and has to flank. Many would say this is true to life, as the Shermans lacked decent firepower. But the point is that at close range a Sherman could damage panzers. In FH1 a Tiger is basically immune to damage from Shermans from all sides, and amazingly resistant to T34s as well, even at point blank range. Hell, I've hit the front of just a PanzerIVH with a 6lber four times in the front at close range for little apparent effect. In real life if a T34 closed the distance they could destroy the heavier tank even against frontal armour. Though I'm sure this isn't news to anyone and has been discussed here before.

Some tank maps can be awfully tiring now when you spawn on certain sides. Spawning as Russian on Prokhorovka for example, you have a choice of four tanks. Only one is able to even try and take on German frontal armour. So to summarize... in FH2 will you be able to take range into account when calculating penetration, or will I spend lots of time in FH2 camping for SU76s?




ww2freak

Ingame name: Major.

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

648 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

1 - Refractor engine.

2 - No support to modding community (no animations, no recoding).




Komrad_B

Score Monkey

45,850 XP

2nd September 2004

0 Uploads

4,500 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

I hope penatration will be by range, its silly right now...

/ME impatiently awaits an answer from the devs.




LordKhaine

I sing the body electric...

50 XP

5th October 2003

0 Uploads

612 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago
ww2freak1 - Refractor engine.

I'm not blaming the devs, I realise they have to work under very tight engine restrictions (far tighter than in most engines). I'm just wondering if BF2 will allow them to do this.




hslan.Faust

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

11th October 2004

0 Uploads

300 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago

more realism is always good, but dont you think this might backfire?

as far as i know, most german guns are even more powerfull at long ranges. is the advantage of close range combat realy worth the diadavantage you get at long ranges compared to now?

and if this is implemented, would it be ok to enhance/cripple allied/axis guns to suit balance complaints, but sacrifice realism?

devs and testers have a long way to go with this possible feature.




Komrad_B

Score Monkey

45,850 XP

2nd September 2004

0 Uploads

4,500 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago

Humm... It would make axis much less powerful, not the other way round. In FH most combats are at very close range (rarely above 200meters), at these ranges the first to shoot usually won, regardless of the tank they were using. Axis tanks would be invincible at ranges like 600-800meters, but at least it would be realistic. The russian tactic to kill heavy tanks at Prokorovka was to charge up to point blank and kill german tanks at very close range. It worked well, the T34 and T60/T70 tanks had a kill death ratio of almost 1-1 agaisnt Tigers, Panthers, Panzer IV and Panzer III, even after a charge in wich they had a lot of losses.




LordKhaine

I sing the body electric...

50 XP

5th October 2003

0 Uploads

612 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

I wouldn't want the penetration to be scaled to the same physical distances otherwise it would just be whoever gets hit first loses due to the close combat in FH. But if the damage were scaled somewhat to differentiate close and long range combat, it would be awesome. Then heavier tanks can stay back and still be immune to many weapons.

Indeed some tanks should be pretty much immune to frontal hits at point blank range. Could the 75mm Sherman penetrate frontal Tiger armour at point blank?




Komrad_B

Score Monkey

45,850 XP

2nd September 2004

0 Uploads

4,500 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago

Probably not :uhm: The soviet 76mm couldn't, but the sherman's 75mm is better so I don't know.




cc.

2 excited 4 shark week

50 XP

25th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,076 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

Well, some tanks pwn and some don't. Just because changing damages at long range makes powerful tanks even more powerful doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Shermans would have a great advantage as well as t54's. It would further impliment ambushing and flanking at well. If it can be done, do it. edit: wooo 800th post! so close but so far..




AussiePepsi

Addicted to GF

50 XP

20th December 2004

0 Uploads

257 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago

"Humm... It would make axis much less powerful, not the other way round."

Komrad_b you are a major allied tank whore so when he says make axis less powerfull im expecting tigers to be taken out my 50cal machine guns.

Id take a prinz eugan over all but yes i am an axis tank whore whahahaah

If it makes the powerful tanks such as tigers, m36s etc better at long range but also giving the less powerful tanks such as the sherman a better chance at close range then ok

AS LONG as its realistic the t34's 76mm should not be able to take out a tiger in frontal combat in any range id say the same to the shermans 75mm.