Back to .25

bfn42 · Post by **bfn42** » 2006-05-25 01:10

I loved the damage system with tanks. Now it's 3 to the front 2 and 1 to the side............not very realistic as far as I'm concerned. Sure the rear is the most vulernable......but it doesn't mean that an APFSDS coulnd't penetrate the front. Anyways....i'm asking if we could go back to .25 damage system for tanks.

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-05-25 01:19

agreed. Maybe 2 AT rockets to the front start a fire, 2 SABOTS kill instantly. 1 SABOT to sides or back kills instantly. 1 AT to the sides or back starts a fire. Seems good to me.

Post by **eggman** » 2006-05-25 01:27

Yeah personally I think our overall vehicle to vehicle combat kinda sucks and we need to improve it.

egg

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-05-25 01:30

I loved the 1 shot 1 kill aspect of tank battles, now im sad... =(
O well, if the tanks need to be mroe powerful, something that would give them a big advantage would be more torque! I can get up hills easier in the RHIB than the tank

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-05-25 01:37

'[R-CON wrote:xW0LFx']yea, but i'll show you guys on how to get a one hit one kill everytime with any tank on any tank, lemme make a vid , will do it later

1337 |-|4><! =o

Post by **GeZe** » 2006-05-25 01:56

I think that overall tank power should greatly be increased, but then this power would only be unleashed if you have good teamwork becuase there should be a seperate driver and gunner (with optional commander on .50 cal).

Copy_of_Blah · Post by **Copy_of_Blah** » 2006-05-25 04:15

I quite like the damage the way it is now.

Armor was too easy to destroy on the last patch I played. Players simply avoided the armor altogether since it was too easy to die in.

All I would change is that the player couldn't be driver and gunner simultaneously.

Oh, extra seats would be nice in the models that had them.

Update: In other words I agree with what GeZe had said

bfn42 · Post by **bfn42** » 2006-05-25 04:24

Copy_of_Blah wrote:I quite like the damage the way it is now.

Armor was too easy to destroy on the last patch I played. Players simply avoided the armor altogether since it was too easy to die in.

All I would change is that the player couldn't be driver and gunner simultaneously.

Oh, extra seats would be nice in the models that had them.

.25 was great as far as tank battles......I actually thought there was less armor whoring but not to the level in which nobody jumped in tanks. I found it quite fun on that one map(the chinese one with all the tanks) going across bridges with armor support and having to keep on the lookout for APCS, Enemy tanks, Enemy AT, stuff like that.

I felt .3 tank battles were a step back from .25. Kinda in between Vanilla and .25.

Copy_of_Blah · Post by **Copy_of_Blah** » 2006-05-25 04:32

All I'm suggesting is that AT soldier(s) should not be ALL THAT much of a deterrent [to the point that armor is not a viable resource.]

Once you get to the point that you feel safer on foot is about the time to reconsider the ballistics.

Anyone have the real ballistics of these weapons vs. their intended targets?

DEDMON5811 · Post by **DEDMON5811** » 2006-05-25 05:00

1 at rocket should kill a Hmmv.

Post by **Katarn** » 2006-05-25 05:05

Should it kill everyone inside as well? That seems unfair that a single AT could kill 6 people with one shot.

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-05-25 05:06

give it maybe 2-3 seconds to burn... then kaboom!

Ranger · Post by **Ranger** » 2006-05-25 15:40

'[R-DEV wrote:Katarn']Should it kill everyone inside as well? That seems unfair that a single AT could kill 6 people with one shot.

Well, it is a reality mod isn't it and that happens in the real world. Wanna talk about unfair, the AT only gets a pistol. That wasn't the case when I was in the military.

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-25 15:42

We're you a rifleman packing AT capabiltiy or a dedicated AT?

With 'heavy' AT weapons the user does not *normally* have the capability to carry an M16 as well, and so he carries a 9mm.

Ranger · Post by **Ranger** » 2006-05-25 15:47

11B rifleman and was qualified to carry the LAW which is smaller than the heavy AT weapons. But I did see others carry them with M-4 and some with SMG. Seems like someone told me they weighed 22lbs or so which is about 4 lbs more than a SAW.

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-25 15:51

A LAW weighed about 5 lb with rockets weighing about 2 lbs on top of that.
M249s weigh about 22 lb when loaded with 200 rounds, they only weight about 15/16 when unloaded

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » 2006-05-25 16:09

Used to trapse around carrying a LAW94 as an infantryman during section attacks etc. British Army Javelin operators will still be carrying their personal weapon (L85A2) when manpacking the Javelin and it's anchilleries. Infantry first, Anti-Armour second.

Weight: Javelin round (LTA, BCU and missile)
Without container: 15.63 kg
With container: 43.6 kg

The container is what the missiles are stored in for transit etc. During ops, they wouldn't be in them, no matter what the pamphlet says.