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

#261 14 years ago

The point isn't how AT weapons are used, there used just fine. Its there properties that Im concerned about. Issue with maps, and other realism issues with tanks does not discount other realism issues. Some of the things Iv metentioned: -Backblast (there is none now) -Countermeasuers on tanks -Flight Characteristics -Noise smoke levels. (more) -Iron sights -Destructive properties ( kill crew not tanks ammo storage) -effectivness against infantry (some splash damage) Just because extreme realism is impossible does not mean that incremental improvements should not be done, afterall FH is built upon incremental improvement. Note I do not abide by many of ideas suggested in this thread by others. There some of the ideas i came away with after watch a video of faust being fired, looking at information on how a faust actaully disables a tank,and the statistics on how many were killed. For example one sight listed 18 percent as number of US tanks disabled by rocket at weapons. (many of these were later recovered for re-use though)




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#262 14 years ago
terminal-strikeThe point isn't how AT weapons are used, there used just fine. Its there properties that Im concerned about. Issue with maps, and other realism issues with tanks does not discount other realism issues. Some of the things Iv metentioned: -Backblast (there is none now) -Countermeasuers on tanks -Flight Characteristics -Noise smoke levels. (more) -Iron sights -Destructive properties ( kill crew not tanks ammo storage) -effectivness against infantry (some splash damage) Just because extreme realism is impossible does not mean that incremental improvements should not be done, afterall FH is built upon incremental improvement. Note I do not abide by many of ideas suggested in this thread by others. There some of the ideas i came away with after watch a video of faust being fired, looking at information on how a faust actaully disables a tank,and the statistics on how many were killed. For example one sight listed 18 percent as number of US tanks disabled by rocket at weapons. (many of these were later recovered for re-use though)

I agree on the smoke and noise. The videos I have seen of bazooka, Schreck and faust everyone within 50m could see a A/T weapon had been fired it and where it came from.

Backblast should be modelled too but thats gonna hurt me and the other guys who like to fire them from windows.

Ironsights on A/T weapons would be excellent.

I also agree 100% on crew taking damage and not necessarily destroying tank. But some way should be implemented to disable tank til "recovered"

Tests show the Schreck and Faust would still detonate even if the round missed the target and splash damage still occured. The US bazooka would rarely go off if it hit the ground and had little splash damage. Allies should be glad the Panzerfaust 150 and 200 didnt hit production. IIRC both had a secondary AP effect built in with shrapnel bands on back of warhead.




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#263 14 years ago
Anlushac11I agree on the smoke and noise. The videos I have seen of bazooka, Schreck and faust everyone within 50m could see a A/T weapon had been fired it and where it came from. Backblast should be modelled too but thats gonna hurt me and the other guys who like to fire them from windows. Ironsights on A/T weapons would be excellent. I also agree 100% on crew taking damage and not necessarily destroying tank. But some way should be implemented to disable tank til "recovered" Tests show the Schreck and Faust would still detonate even if the round missed the target and splash damage still occured. The US bazooka would rarely go off if it hit the ground and had little splash damage. Allies should be glad the Panzerfaust 150 and 200 didnt hit production. IIRC both had a secondary AP effect built in with shrapnel bands on back of warhead.

Ok cool. I meant anti-personall damage- not tank splash damage. The porabilty of detonaton on different materials another interinsh layer. The US one woul detonante on buildings etc fine, though I have not heard if it did no go off on ground. As for the ap splash damage and backblast I mean just a small radius (going on the idea of scaling to the smaller engine). If they ever do the later ones though, i agree these should have a bigger radius. One the long cross hair close time- this is quite reasonble as the weapon had to be preped beofre fiiring - raising sights, safety of etc in addition to actually concentraing on where to fire. Also, they were not very accurate- right now they are very predictable and the inaccuracy comes from there difficulty to aim (there high trajectory).