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

Please wait...

HOT Denise Richards

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

28th September 2004

0 Uploads

12 Posts

0 Threads

#251 15 years ago

I still think the crosshair shrink time is much too slow still.




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#252 15 years ago

Ok, I've been doing some thinking about this, and I think I've come up with a solution. It's really the ONLY solution that I can see.

Map design.

Period. End of story.

If you want Tanks to be more feared, there are a few things you can do with your map design to help:

1.) Reduce available cover. This means fewer bushes, walls, rocks, craters, urban areas, etc. Basically, make it harder for infantry to hide.

2.) Make AT/Eng kits pick-up kits on that map. If you don't want a team of AT troopers, or all you want is a few AT troops at a given spawn, limit the number of AT packs available in the round and force people to spawn as something else.

3.) Increase visibility, reduce fog. The more area a tank can see, the more likely it is to survive. If terrain is hidden from the tank in any way, it has a likelihood of being picked off.

That's it, basically. If you want infantry to fight infantry and not tanks, limit their ability to do so by virtue of kit availability. It's that simple.




sempai(be)

Addicted to GF

50 XP

1st October 2003

0 Uploads

281 Posts

0 Threads

#253 15 years ago

Like giving them an ice-skating ring so they can do some target practice on infantry ?

Just face it , the Tiger can be killed now and someone else will have taken it before you can have another go at it . (the horror :naughty: )

All considered tanks are behaving much more like their WWII counterparts , or should so.

A tank without infantry is dead meat , today I even killed me a King Tiger with a mere Greyhound.




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#254 15 years ago
Anlushac11 ... 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.

Perhaps the ideal faust destruction would be to actully just kill the crew and leave the tank smoking. Then 'eng' could 'recover' the tank. Solo: none of those idea are realistic or do very much for gameplay. I do agree its partly a map related issue, but not with the solution you suggest. People the idea is get more realistic modelling of the weapon, while generally maintaing the balance that is there. This would only marginally reduce there effectiveness against tanks in some situation, and improve it other instances. Contrary to what some people have said, countermeasueres are quite effective. Tanks with countermeauseres are not very widespread in the game and if they are they do not effect it recoiless weapon effectivness. Backblast- backblast was big part of correcty fireing the weapon without kill yourself or other soldiers. Range- range is scaled very well to the smallness of the game engine so the backblast would have to be as well. Effectivnes against infantry- these things should do at least some splash damage. Not a lot, but least some. Iron sights? The probailty of a hit is quite well modeled now, but the probailty of extreme damage is quite high. With my first suggestion there the tank should be left smoking- and ideally with the crew dead or nearly dead.




GeneralBergfruehling

Whiping out since 1942

50 XP

8th October 2004

0 Uploads

91 Posts

0 Threads

#255 15 years ago

I didn't read the whole topic so if anyone else stated this....

So you say inf is to strong against tanks because on unrealistic issues?

Let me show you my point of view: tank drivers are to strong against infantry because they do 3 jobs at one time maning 2 deadly weapons against infrantry and in some cases can access 2 other instantly.

The tankdriver not only can drive and move the turret but shoot the Canon AND the coax at the same time. If pounding an outpost filled with infantry threatening him and the coax is overheated/reloading he can switch to a cupola MG or/and a forward body MG instantly and continue firing. ALSO he can look around very fast 360° AND have external cameras to check the six very fast. ALSO tanks are fast and its hard to expack them.

And then you say Inf. is too strong with one little Panzerfaust which needs a lot of time to aim and is only effective inside the tanks range???

If anyone manages to kill a tank with Faust or expacks in most cases he deserves it.

Please also read my Tank idea thread for my suggestions.




Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#256 15 years ago
HOT Denise RichardsI still think the crosshair shrink time is much too slow still.

I think the closing time is good now. If the tank kills you because your crosshairs closed too slow, then you were in a bad spot to start with and shouldn't have exposed yourself until a better shot was available.




sempai(be)

Addicted to GF

50 XP

1st October 2003

0 Uploads

281 Posts

0 Threads

#257 15 years ago
SkipsterI think the closing time is good now. If the tank kills you because your crosshairs closed too slow, then you were in a bad spot to start with and shouldn't have exposed yourself until a better shot was available.

There isn't even a closing time for your crosshair. :naughty:

Try browsing the forum. :rolleyes:




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#258 15 years ago
GeneralBergfruehlingI didn't read the whole topic so if anyone else stated this.... So you say inf is to strong against tanks because on unrealistic issues? Let me show you my point of view: tank drivers are to strong against infantry because they do 3 jobs at one time maning 2 deadly weapons against infrantry and in some cases can access 2 other instantly. The tankdriver not only can drive and move the turret but shoot the Canon AND the coax at the same time. If pounding an outpost filled with infantry threatening him and the coax is overheated/reloading he can switch to a cupola MG or/and a forward body MG instantly and continue firing. ALSO he can look around very fast 360° AND have external cameras to check the six very fast. ALSO tanks are fast and its hard to expack them. And then you say Inf. is too strong with one little Panzerfaust which needs a lot of time to aim and is only effective inside the tanks range??? If anyone manages to kill a tank with Faust or expacks in most cases he deserves it. Please also read my Tank idea thread for my suggestions.

No thats not the point at all (for me at least). Other people have diffent idea but for me Its about getting the weapon modeled more accurately. Its not that it would be 'worse' or ' better' it would just have different qualities. -The current system is pretty well balanced, and yes the tanks have there own realism issues to- but that doesn't justify the rocket at weapons. What Im saying is that the current balance is good, but there possibiltys for improvemnt. -For example fausts are hard to aim becasue they have a big arc. There range is much shorter becasue they are scaled to the engine. Real faust flew faster and straigher, but were inaccurate. So fausts are balanced well in the sense have some of the same qualities-- but those qualites that cause this are not the same as the rl ones. -Failures agaisnt tank Iv really changed my mind on mostly since many hits against tanks front and side end in failure. I do stand by having some more presense of countermeasures on tanks, and the approiet reduced effecivtenss. (Sicne most counter-measures weren't were people get there kill (such as the back) then this wouln't effect balacne very much). -Full explosion vs Killing crew and leaving tanks smoking. A succesgul hit rarely detonated the ammo. It may 'reperesent' the tank being taken out- but every back hit should no explode the tank. Killing the crew and leaving the tank smoking most of time would be more realisitc. -Backblast- there's no backbast. The cross hair time almost simulates checking to see if you don't kill yourself or another soldier, but once again this is achiveing balance in a different way then the rl weapon. As far as the cross hair goes - they were hard to aim so it reasonable, though I would prefer iron sights even more. The foucs for me is on giving the weapons there real drawbacks rather then designed drawbacks- it doesn't neccearily mean they'll be less effecitive.- just that they'll be used differenty. Now of coure ppl have suggested many things in this thread that I do no agree with, but Iv tried so sum up some my points here. I can check your other thread but I don't know which one your talking about (need a link).




Ladigue

An island in the Seychelles

50 XP

4th February 2004

0 Uploads

216 Posts

0 Threads

#259 15 years ago
Solo4114 1.) Reduce available cover. This means fewer bushes, walls, rocks, craters, urban areas, etc. Basically, make it harder for infantry to hide. 2.) Make AT/Eng kits pick-up kits on that map. If you don't want a team of AT troopers, or all you want is a few AT troops at a given spawn, limit the number of AT packs available in the round and force people to spawn as something else. 3.) Increase visibility, reduce fog. The more area a tank can see, the more likely it is to survive. If terrain is hidden from the tank in any way, it has a likelihood of being picked off. .

Geez. Why do you have to be feared so much in the Tiger you lined up for 5 minutes to spawn? Why? Reducing cover vegetation would be utterly dumb. Tanks could be pretty nicely avoided in WW2 by hiding in vegetation, ditches etc. And if you look around in Western parts of Russia, Central Europe and even more so in the Pacific area...what do you typically see? Shitloads of vegetation. Now, as regards making AT kits pickup kits only...I am OK with that if we counter that by putting in realistic amounts of tanks. That would be something like 1 for 500 soldiers typically. Sometimes, in maps like Kursk, you might have like 1 for every 150 soldiers. What does that mean? No tanks in the maps with so few people. Realism. You tank apologists do not realize how rare tanks were in comparison to infantry when whining about AT weapons by invoking "realism". Let's do it so that we have like 1 or 2 tanks on any map...and that they CANNOT RESPAWN. Then you can have pick-up AT kits. Do some research into just how rare tanks were in WW2 in comparison to foot soldiers. Really rare. The other options is to keep things as they are and retain the playability. That's what I advocate. LaDigue




Sjoert

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

23rd August 2004

0 Uploads

308 Posts

0 Threads

#260 15 years ago

I have no problems with anti tank infantry because i never try to cap a flag without infantry support and besides trying to cap a flag without infantry support is suicide unless there are no buildings nearby or cover. Aiming time too slow? Not if you ask me mostly when i get taken out by at infantry i dont even know where they are. :uhm: