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

Please wait...

Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#241 15 years ago
USMA2010No, im smart enough to aim where the schurzen is not... like the top of the hull, or the back of the tank.

C'mon, lighten up :D




Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#242 15 years ago
terminal-strikeI 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.

I don't know much either, but I think the way it works is: each facing of the tank has an armor value, and each shot has a damage value (i think that can vary a bit randomly) When a shot hits the tank, the armor value is deducted from the shot damage, and the remainder is applied to the tank's HP. MG fire has low enough damage compared to the armor value, it does nothing. So the only difference facing makes, is a different armor value to deduct from the shot damage. It's not a percentage of HP lost, it's an absolute value. For tanks to lose 90% of their health to a rear hit, all tanks would have to have the same rear armor. Note that if I am way off on how damage works, this post is a waste of time :D




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#243 15 years ago

There's also damage types in the game. Each weapon in the game has a damage type and you have to make sure that the damage type is recognized by all surfaces that it's supposed to damage.

Case in point, the M35/Pzb35 AT rifle on Fall Weiss and Crete actually had no ability to harm planes in 0.61. This was not because the plane armor was so high, but rather because the plane armor simply didn't recognize the damage type.

I'm not sure if there really IS a way to model locational damage other than what we have now. I think the solution to the problem is not in the damage that AT weapons do, but rather some other solution like better balancing the classes and/or altering other aspects of weapon performance. The AT speed shouldn't be as slow as 0.6, but it shouldn't be quite what it is now, I don't think.

One solution might be the kind of weapon sway that we see on rifle grenades now. Think about it. You're using a big, honking weapon if it's a PIAT, schrek, or bazooka. If it's a faust, you're still using a weapon that can't be aimed reliably in a split second. Weapon sway that slowly subsides might help here.

Similarly, backblast might be another good way to balance the weapons so that you can, conceivably, fry yourself if you use a faust while prone.

Basically, all I'm looking for is some way to make AT weapons used more in a defensive position, rather than quite the run'n'gun weapon they are now, or, to the extent that they're quite so powerful, balance other aspects of the class.

One example, I actually think works, is the Tank Hunter class. The SMG with satchels means short-range combat and short-range tank killing, requiring that you get up close and personal (which often means being killed). That's a relatively well balanced class in my opinion. The engineer is the same way. Yes, you have the long range rifle capability, but you have to get close to use the satchels.

The thing about the German AT class is its versatility AND lethality, but this has been true since 0.5. It's always been a balancing issue. Part of it's been solved with the limits on reloads, but it's still a really tough balancing act. If it weren't historically inaccurate, I'd say that the schrek would be the best weapon loadout. Yes, it's powerful, but it still fundamentally operates the way all the other AT weapons do (except the rifles).

Another option would be to have the AT rifle be used far more often, and have the fausts as pickup kits.




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#244 15 years ago

Different damage values on each side is at elast possible, so making the pz 4 with side plates invunerable to AT weps form the side would be possible on this logic.

Having a sand-baged sherman, or a t-34 with mesh would proablyhave to be done then at some point. Maybe have a 1/3 spawn probality like someone suggested.

-I dont' think any plan that reduces fast distrobution is good though, since fausts were a pretty common weapon.

-I do totally agree with the adding backblast though, I think that would add a lot of realism to the weapon.

-Anther idea would be to give the Faust iron sights rather then the glowing, floating cross hairs. I think its enough different from other infantry weapons that it would add some more realism to the weapon use without impling all weapons will have them.

I think Id feel better about a tank kill if I did looking through the 'real' faust sights. Tanks have iron sights now, and its at weapon so it wouldn't be that outrageous (in the senst of meaing all inf weps should have iron sights) since its a rocket wepon.

-There effectivness against infantry is underated I think, since that was pretty comon use of them but hardly done at all now.

-Loudness, light, and smoke. THese things seems to produce less noise and smoke, then the ones I saw in a video. (being shot into a building actually). Iv heard of them being used as flares impromtu flares as well to. Baically I think firing one should be more of 'experince' in the sense of noise, etc.

And of course finally I'd like to congratulate the devs on how far the AT weps have come since vanilla and all they work they'v put into them. I talk about these things as ideas for the future and not whining.




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#245 15 years ago

Oh absolutely. The faust is LIGHT YEARS better than it was in 0.5 when it was TRULY a rocket launcher from UT or Quake. Run around, bunny hop, blow something away. It's also better than the excruciatingly sloooooow to aim AT weapons of 0.6.




ScorpionTBC

I post to get attention

50 XP

30th October 2003

0 Uploads

54 Posts

0 Threads

#246 15 years ago

Once again, I must protest. "Defenses" made up of dense material added to the outside of the tank, such as logs and sandbags, may have actually ASSISTED shaped charge weapons rather than defeating them.

The plasma jet formed by the shaped charge round travels along the path of least resistance. So the less resistance around the main armor, the less of the energy will be focused on it. Thus air gaps are effective, to some degree, in diffusing the energy of the shaped charge and thus the penetration power.

However, the denser the material between the standoff point (the point at which the weapon discharges) the less it will reduce the energy focusing on the main armor. Sandbags, for one, optimized the standoff range of the panzerfaust. Now, sand by itself would not have had as great an effect on dissipating the energy due to its properties (denser than air). In addition, the effects of heat on sand are such that under optimal conditions, the sand can actually increase the penetrating power of the plasma jet by focusing the jet onto the main armor. Someone more knowledgable in physics than I needs to explain this better, but it is basically akin to turning the sand to glass.

Any account where sandbag supposedly helped in defeating an enemy round can generally be better explained away by some other factor. With respect to AP rounds sandbags were worthless, and for shaped charges they were better off with nothing but air. Some things such as adding tracks or logs to the vulnerable parts of a tank were generally more effective at improving the aim point of an enemy than they were at protecting the tank.

If the engineers of the time had proven that such makeshift defenses would actually DEFEAT shaped charge weapons or assist to any great degree in defeating other types of weapons, I am quite sure that every armored unit entering dense or urban terrain would have added such defenses. They were added by troops that scrambled to protect themselves based on myths perpetrated throughout the ranks, and apparently still believed by some to this day.

Their only real effects were increasing morale, slowing down the tank, adding more strain on the suspension, and making it more prone to mechanical breakdowns.

-Scorp




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#247 15 years ago
ScorpionTBCOnce again, I must protest. "Defenses" made up of dense material added to the outside of the tank, such as logs and sandbags, may have actually ASSISTED shaped charge weapons rather than defeating them. The plasma jet formed by the shaped charge round travels along the path of least resistance. So the less resistance around the main armor, the less of the energy will be focused on it. Thus air gaps are effective, to some degree, in diffusing the energy of the shaped charge and thus the penetration power. However, the denser the material between the standoff point (the point at which the weapon discharges) the less it will reduce the energy focusing on the main armor. Sandbags, for one, optimized the standoff range of the panzerfaust. Now, sand by itself would not have had as great an effect on dissipating the energy due to its properties (denser than air). In addition, the effects of heat on sand are such that under optimal conditions, the sand can actually increase the penetrating power of the plasma jet by focusing the jet onto the main armor. Someone more knowledgable in physics than I needs to explain this better, but it is basically akin to turning the sand to glass. Any account where sandbag supposedly helped in defeating an enemy round can generally be better explained away by some other factor. With respect to AP rounds sandbags were worthless, and for shaped charges they were better off with nothing but air. Some things such as adding tracks or logs to the vulnerable parts of a tank were generally more effective at improving the aim point of an enemy than they were at protecting the tank. If the engineers of the time had proven that such makeshift defenses would actually DEFEAT shaped charge weapons or assist to any great degree in defeating other types of weapons, I am quite sure that every armored unit entering dense or urban terrain would have added such defenses. They were added by troops that scrambled to protect themselves based on myths perpetrated throughout the ranks, and apparently still believed by some to this day. Their only real effects were increasing morale, slowing down the tank, adding more strain on the suspension, and making it more prone to mechanical breakdowns. -Scorp

This is so, so horribly wrong I actually laughed when I read this. Seriously no offense man, but geez......




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#248 15 years ago

{SmB}IcelanDick 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. [/quote]

By handhelds Im assuming you are referring to the faust, schreck, bazooka, piat, etc?

The only thing range affects is whether or not you can hit the target, it has no effect on the lethality of the round.

{SmB}IcelanDick 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.

No. The explosion is supersonic and the focus of the blast is toward the armor, but not all the blast. Part of the blast does get expended ******ds. if you ran up and rammed the panzerfaust warhead into the side of a tank the blast will kill you. Plus the casing helps contain the blast since it cannot move out of the way at the same supersonic speed as the explosion.

[QUOTE={SmB}IcelanDick] 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

You keep thinking that warhead velocity is important to whether a shaped charge warhead works. It has Zero affect.

As I said before you are not understanding how shaped charge weapons work.

You are still thinking in terms of kinetic energy impacts. The only thing air resistance affects is how far the warhead can travel, if the target is too far away the round loses enough forward velocity to mantain flight and drops to the ground where it still detonates.

The Germans had a magnetically attached shaped charge anti-tank mine (Hafthohlladung?) that was used by a Soldier running up and attaching the mine, pulling the timed fuse, and running away. The fuse detonates and sets off the shaped charge and the shaped charge penetrates the steel.

By your definition this shaped charge warhead should not function because it has no forward momentum to keep the flame tongue and force of blast from pushing the warhead away before it can cut.

The results are instantaneous. There is no time for the warhead to move out of the way, it is destroyed.

One thing I agree with Terminal Strike with, most shaped charge penetrations only knock out a tank and kill the crew. A fire or explosion willmonly occur if the flame tongue or molten metal spray hit and penetrate something that can explode or burn.

According to Belton Coopers book the only time they couldnt salvage a Shermans was if it caught fire or if it had taken a hit in the turret ring. Anything else and the tank could be repaired or salvaged for parts. Another thing Cooper mantioned is that the Germans operated a recovery effort, but no where near as extensive or as dedicated as the US recovery teams were.




AZson

Baaad boy

50 XP

4th August 2004

0 Uploads

95 Posts

0 Threads

#249 15 years ago

Panzerfausts or not I know the Sherman tank had very thin armor a very low velocity gun with a very bad per-square inch track weight. Which meant is was fast but was terrible off road. General Patton wanted a fast agile tank not a slower well armed tank and he got his way. It cost a lot of tank crew lives. Very rarely did it get a one shot one kill with a German tank unless it was from behind. I've always read the sandbags where to of set the thinness in the armor. Towards the end of WWII some armored divisions where down to running 2 man crews because many of the experienced crews where dead. Walmart is selling a 1-6 scale radio control Stuart tank. Looks nice




Gen'l Knight

Can't ... give peace a chance?

50 XP

10th April 2004

0 Uploads

1,920 Posts

0 Threads

#250 15 years ago

The more I play .65, the more I realize how balanced the devs have made the AT v. tanks. I've seen: - tanks getting taken out when venturing into towns unsupported (as they should) - not killing a tank with a single panzerfaust round (where is the ammo box before I die) - infantry keeping there distance and lying in wait least they die to mg fire (as they should) - being killed in a tank with a front shot by AT (surprise, surprise!) - multiple tanks coming into town causing the infantry to spawn as AT to counter (which it should) - tanks grouping together to form protection (like they should) - infantry accompanying tanks (when they can) What I see more often than not is tanks not waiting for infantry support. I'm guilty here as well but I pay for my impatience usually. I made an earlier comment about possibly removing the K98 from the Axis AT but I think I'm changing my mind here. Something is needed for protection until that ammo box can be found! What this does is put the game and our take on the AT situation back in focus. AT was to be feared - why the counter measures if not? And why were counter measures used if they were not effective? However, after reading up a little bit on the subject, these were not always 100% effective so that fact has to be taken into consideration. Even if they were incorporated, a smart AT guy is not going to play into their strengths but find an unportected spot. Germans used light and medium tanks early in the war as an assault vehicle, supported with infantry. The break through capabilites of armor alone is a fallacy, possible a reminent of old time thinking from WWI, when tanks were first used with limited success. Early WWII field artillery was capable of countering armor, causing armor tactics (and ultimately armor itself) to change. Once tank armor got beefier, this brought about the need for increased counters, including infantry AT. Again, infantry AT is to be feared for a reason. Without this fear, this game becomes a tanker's paradise and, frankly, when I play infantry, I don't feel like I'm in heaven. I think including external counters to AT is a trivial thing, trivial to the game play and just a pain for the devs. If you have counter measures, for example, on sloped armor, that tank will lose the advantage of sloping as that counter measure will accept the kinetically fired charge. Armor skirting got tore up all the time since it was only 5mm thick: how do you represent that? Again, just minor changes that really do nothing to to the gameplay that a tanker waiting on his infantry wouldn't accomplish.