Why AT infantry vs tanks is redicuous in FH -1 reply

Please wait...

terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#231 15 years ago
SkipsterHeh, it'll piss you off too, if you're not in the tank :D Besides, the tank driver is probably a noob and will spin in circles, so everyone gets a shot at his unprotected ass:moon:

I actually feel like im cheating when I get all these one hit kills with the faust. But It should be a treat and not occur with such consitency. For example the back is a almost gauranted explosion- but really you just take out the engine. So lowering the tank down to burning/smoking status more often when you hit the back would be make more sense. When the crew bails you can own them with you k98. The idea of doing health damage with hit is pretty neat I idea to. Even if a hit didn't destroy it could kill some crew members, so that idea has some potential. I dont think I would want this until the probality of destruction was lowered thoguh.




Hail of Nails

I want to be like Revenge

50 XP

13th June 2004

0 Uploads

376 Posts

0 Threads

#232 15 years ago

I think Terminal strike has got it.... or at least one of the best solutions I've heard. Instead of an AT weapon destroying a tank, it will almost always merely disable it, forcing the crew to either sit in the tank, and burn, or get out and take their chances against infantry. That way, AT such as the PIAT will be useful for disabling tanks, but ideally should have infantry around to help deal with the escaping crew. This would suck for the AT's score, and for all those score whores, I propose that killing a tank gives you two points, whether or not the crew is killed.




{SmB}IcelanDick

Ég tala ekki Íslensku

50 XP

12th June 2004

0 Uploads

661 Posts

0 Threads

#233 15 years ago
Anlushac11 Thats the beauty of shaped charges, unlike AP penetrator rounds that require velocity and mass to penetrate the shapee charge is self containeed and will do the same amount of damage at 50m as 5000m. It just has to hit the target fairly flat. If it hits angled armor the superheated plasma will gouge a trough or groove in the armor as it burns away the steel but the full focus of the blast is not concentrated and alot of energy just escapes around the sides.

Maybe because it was late I wasn't explaining myself clearly. I understand how shaped charges work. The kinetic rounds, too. And I'm not denying that they do what you say. But at the handhelds extreme range there won't be a lot of force behind the projectile. This is what isn't really properly represented in game (if it even can be, it is just a game after all). Air resistance will slow them down. When the projectile hits the armor, regardless of the angle, if it doesn't have that momentum behind it to give it a moment for the plasma to burn directly into the armor it's just going to skip off fairly harmlessly. It's been awhile since I was in physics class, but I still remember Newtons 3rd Law, so that momentum also has to overcome the reverse force the jet of plasma is going to direct against the projectile. Anyway, this is all about trying to make the handheld's damage to scale with tanks in FH. If you point-blank shoot a tank with another tank compared to point blank shooting the tank with a 'faust, etc, the 'faust is way more effective, which shouldn't be. And if you arc a long range shot with the 'faust at the tank, it's still just as effective, which seems to me with my weak attempt at Physics 101 shouldn't be either. demo.gif




{SmB}IcelanDick

Ég tala ekki Íslensku

50 XP

12th June 2004

0 Uploads

661 Posts

0 Threads

#234 15 years ago
terminal-strikeI actually feel like im cheating when I get all these one hit kills with the faust. But It should be a treat and not occur with such consitency. For example the back is a almost gauranted explosion- but really you just take out the engine. So lowering the tank down to burning/smoking status more often when you hit the back would be make more sense. When the crew bails you can own them with you k98. The idea of doing health damage with hit is pretty neat I idea to. Even if a hit didn't destroy it could kill some crew members, so that idea has some potential. I dont think I would want this until the probality of destruction was lowered thoguh.

Ever played Soldiers:Heroes of WW2? Most of the time this is how it is when you take out a tank. Sometime some soldiers die still in the tank, sometimes they've got time to bail the burning tank, sometimes the tank explodes and they all die.




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#235 15 years ago
{SmB}IcelanDickEver played Soldiers:Heroes of WW2? Most of the time this is how it is when you take out a tank. Sometime some soldiers die still in the tank, sometimes they've got time to bail the burning tank, sometimes the tank explodes and they all die.

Naa but I will check it out, sounds interesting. As for the tanks, yes i agree its more realistic that way. Even with convential shot people could bail somtimes, or of course as you point out, they could also go up in huge explosion.




Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#236 15 years ago
terminal-strike. For example the back is a almost gauranted explosion- but really you just take out the engine. So lowering the tank down to burning/smoking status more often when you hit the back would be make more sense.

I agree, but the way the game engine works, tanks don't have engines. To simulate the effect you speak of, you could either A) increase rear armor so no rocket can do enough damage to completely destroy a tank (you would have to make sure all tanks had at least this much armor at rear) However, this would skew hit results using AP weaponry. Or you could nerf AT weapons so they can't kill a tank from behind with one shot, but then the AT weapons would be worse against front and sides. An exploding tank, by necessity, represents any catastrophic event that causes the tank to cease to exist as a weapon system, whether it's hitting the ammo storage, causing explosion, or a slightly damaging hit causes the scared crew to bail from a relatively intact tank.




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#237 15 years ago

I'll admit, I'm getting sick of the faust again. It's not QUITE as bad as it was in 0.5, but it's close. For some reason, the accuracy changes in 0.61 don't seem to have carried over, so you can still just whip out your faust and blast a guy without taking any accuracy penalty.




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#238 15 years ago
SkipsterI agree, but the way the game engine works, tanks don't have engines. To simulate the effect you speak of, you could either A) increase rear armor so no rocket can do enough damage to completely destroy a tank (you would have to make sure all tanks had at least this much armor at rear) However, this would skew hit results using AP weaponry. Or you could nerf AT weapons so they can't kill a tank from behind with one shot, but then the AT weapons would be worse against front and sides. An exploding tank, by necessity, represents any catastrophic event that causes the tank to cease to exist as a weapon system, whether it's hitting the ammo storage, causing explosion, or a slightly damaging hit causes the scared crew to bail from a relatively intact tank.

I think theres ways to make it work though. I don't know enough about how damage systems work, but the damage exchange for given weapon system I don't think is constrained. I mean that it would be possible to make it so tanks lose 90% percent of there health from a rear hit or something, and that this wouldn effect other systems. Just like mg fire does nothing, but tank shots have different effects for differtnt sides. Do to the general health - 'a destoryed tank' can end up reperesting any kind of disablement. For realism though and in FH this doesnt have to e the case. A crew bailing can be represented by the person bailing out, and a destroyed engiend repereseted by the low heath where the tank cant move. a destroyed tank is better represented by the burning/low health thank. Just like in rl the people would bail out and could be killed.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#239 15 years ago
SkipsterHeh, it'll piss you off too, if you're not in the tank :D Besides, the tank driver is probably a noob and will spin in circles, so everyone gets a shot at his unprotected ass:moon:

No, im smart enough to aim where the schurzen is not... like the top of the hull, or the back of the tank.




{SmB}IcelanDick

Ég tala ekki Íslensku

50 XP

12th June 2004

0 Uploads

661 Posts

0 Threads

#240 15 years ago
terminal-strikeNaa but I will check it out, sounds interesting. As for the tanks, yes i agree its more realistic that way. Even with convential shot people could bail somtimes, or of course as you point out, they could also go up in huge explosion.

Good game, steep learning curve though, I highly recommend it. Hopefully BF2's vehicle damage system will work like S:HOWW2.