Vehicles fighting infantry in buildings.

[=(DK)=stoffen_tacticalsup]

Playing a round of Beirut on the TG server last week, I found myself crewing a merkava.

Our team had gotten pushed back a little and we needed to take back the lost ground.
We used our tank to cover an infantry assault on a large enterable building.

We used HEAT-shells to try and soften up the enemy and our co-axial to pin them down.

What struck my gunner and myself was, that we simply couldnt get rid of the infantry in the building, despite som dead-on shots we hadnt got more than a 3 kills.

It seems silly, in way, that a heatround from a MBT can only purge a single room.
This actually goes for a lot of vehicles and their weaponry.

I was thinking that maybe it ought to work a little more like the JDAM system, which will kill things inside of buildings? I personally believe that a round from a tank would obliterate any room fired at, as well as any in conjunction with it.

I hope this isnt a resuggestion which ends up screaming HARDCODED at me, a quick search revealed nothing.

Thoughts?

[mangeface]

Well, IRL HEAT rounds don't have the penetration that SABOTs have. Granted I know a HEAT round would blow through a couple of rooms. In turn, SABOTS don't have the massive splash damage that HEATs do. It's all one big loop hole. I just say pin them down and make them move back a room, and let the infantry frag them out.

Personally, I think the tanks weapons systems are a bit unbalance, as a M1 Abrams or Challenger 2 would knock out any Soviet era tanks in 1 shot. And on some maps the OPFOR tanks could probably get the BLUFOR tanks in 1 shot since they're upgraded models. Still, I don't like that it usually takes a MINIMUM of 3 shots to kill an opposing tank. That's definately not very realistic.

[tommytgun]

. Still, I don't like that it usually takes a MINIMUM of 3 shots to kill an opposing tank. That's definately not very realistic.

Yes, it is not very realistic, but remember, gameplay > realism. Would you want to crew a tank if you know it's going to die in one shot while the enemy's tanks take 3? I know I wouldn't.

[Cossack]

The Abram cant kill Russian T-90 with one single shot. Or T-72. And don't even think about Chinese Type 99. If only they are using some kind TOW missile. So forget about it.

[mangeface]

The Abram cant kill Russian T-90 with one single shot. Or T-72. And don't even think about Chinese Type 99. If only they are using some kind TOW missile. So forget about it.

Yeah, totally. I don't know if you remember this, but the M1 Abrams F***** up the Iraqi T-72s in both Gulf Wars. I'm pretty sure an Abrams could take on a T-90, but that's an arguement not worth going into because if that matchup was to happen, it would've so it's not worth arguing about. I'm no military guru, but I don't think there's an armor package on a MBT in the world right now that can withstand the SABOTs the M1 shoots. And if one is carrying the armor to withstand it, it's a heavy package and it'll probably be on the front. So that means the tank would be heavy and slow. Letting the M1 advantage of one of it's biggest assets and speed right up behind it and shoot it in the ***, just like the M4 Shermans did to German Tigers in WW2. And that little speil was about the Type 99.

[Arnoldio]

Yes, it is not very realistic, but remember, gameplay > realism. Would you want to crew a tank if you know it's going to die in one shot while the enemy's tanks take 3? I know I wouldn't.

I like it how this "realism>gameplay" figure appears ON EVERY DAMN NEW SUGGESTION TOPIC, and it wasnt appearing before someone said it.

In terms of bullet damage, armour and that stuff, it must be realistic so you use different tactics, thats the point of the game i believe. Then why dont all rifles use the same ammo/damage/magazine size if its so gameplay balanced?

And yes i would crew a tank wich would die in 1 shot because thats what i do when crewing BMP, i know that they are not tanks but they have the weaponry equivalent to a tank with less armor than a tank, therefore they die pretty easily and im cool with that.

[killonsight95]

well then the same goes for the other way round i'm sure a type 99 SABOT round could kill an M1 as well

also i would also man a tank that could be one shotted if that tank is supported by AT infantry then it'll pwn so hard

[Nebsif]

Good thread is good.
Hope the JDAM work around can be applied to vehicle projectiles..

Another thingy is that tank's advantage IRL is ability to engage targets at looooooooooooooooooooooong range, but u cant do that in PR cuz of map size limit and view distance limit. Which makes you an easy target for HAT guys going prone->crouch at u behind some hill 400m away. Even if u spotted him 1st u cant do much unless u kill him in the 1st few seconds b4 he goes prone behind some little bump. If say he tried to HAT u from 3km away it would be much harder for him.

And like darkside wrote, Abrams is very weak, not only its getting raped by T90's ATGMs, it can also be disabled or destroyed by ONE 120mm AP shell to the front/turret, while it takes at least 3 shells to the front to destroy a T-72. Ive even got a vid where I one shot a full hp Abrams (if u hit between the turret and hull). Its probably the weakest tank ingame after T-62 (coz of da 10+ sec reload time).
T-72's weak spot is the TOP of the turret, but it doesnt help in tank vs tank.

[Rudd]

I agree with this suggestion,

Well, IRL HEAT rounds don't have the penetration that SABOTs have. Granted I know a HEAT round would blow through a couple of rooms. In turn, SABOTS don't have the massive splash damage that HEATs do.

this sounds like a good gameplay dynamic imo, let the Sabots go through buildings like the 50cals do, HEAT can't but has the radius, so its balanced and interesting.

[dtacs]

I agree with this suggestion,

this sounds like a good gameplay dynamic imo, let the Sabots go through buildings like the 50cals do, HEAT can't but has the radius, so its balanced and interesting.

Not really, this suggestion would mean that in this figure you'd still take damage even if there is a wall that is very thick. Its due to the engine limitations, just like the JDAM, it would go THROUGH any structure so long as it falls within the confines of the radius.



Basically imagine this. You are in a room and a tank puts a HEAT shell into the wall, it would explode, doing significant damage to the interior and most likely killing all inside. The blast radius (hypothetical) is 10m, the wall is 1m thick.

Now, imagine that wall is 9m thick, and I'm pretty sure there is no way that a HEAT shell could penetrate that. IRL, you would feel a shock but you would not be hit by the explosion or shrapnel. In PR however, since it would act in the JDAM way, you would still take damage since you are 1m within the blast radius.

I support this by all means on a proper engine, however I don't want to be dying when I'm in decent cover simply due to a limitation. Can you imagine what it would be like for tanks firing at caches if this was instituted?

[Rudd]

good point dtacs, Stoffens original method would probably be better then

[killonsight95]

do we have any more than 3 meter thick walls?
although we could sacrifce the blast radius for this?

[dtacs]

do we have any more than 3 meter thick walls?
although we could sacrifce the blast radius for this?

Trade a three meter thick wall for a huge cliff, or simply terrain such as a large hill which the radius would go through, hurting you on the other side.

Or the huge bunker walls on the bunkers in Kashan, those were designed to stop carpet bombings and a tank shell would hurt the people on the inside.

Discussing different statics is just semantics, the fact remains that this suggestion, while realistic and with good intent, wouldn't work.

[Spec]

Maybe there's a work around though. Maybe give terrain and bunker walls a different material (as they probably have already anyway) and only let tank shells have their full damage plus penetration at materials that are only used for thin walls or something. (Problem is that many objects are made of several materials, and hitting a tree on a hill might, because it's wood and considered "thin", still allow for full damage, radius, and JDAM effect, so this very suggestion would probably not work, but maybe something along these lines).

[=(DK)=stoffen_tacticalsup]

I see your points, but completely worthless I just dont think it is.

While your example uses a kill radius of 10 meters, I think that 3-5 meters could do.

Its correct there would be an issue on kashan with the bunkers, look at what maps tanks are curently on.


But I think that the current situation is worse than the situation would be with a 5 meter kill radius on a tank heat shell.

The main point of my suggestion is to remove situations that are unrealistic and frustrating.

I assure you, any mbt heat shell will destroy any building 100 square meters that is not millitarily reinforced in some manor. With this in mind a 5 meter kill radius allows you to proxy that effect.
But there is a problem with structures such as bunkers I agree. (But if a LAT can take care of a destructable bunker, shouldnt a heat-shell do some similar amount of damage to the large bunkers?)

Oh, and if youre fireing that close to friendlies in the first place, you are doing something very, very wrong.

[Conman51]

I would like this suggestion but seeing dtacs argument i dont think it would be wise to put it into PR


Its just because engine limitations right now that it cant be coded right

[Arnoldio]

Its probably possible to do something but would need assigning new materials n stuff.

[=(DK)=stoffen_tacticalsup]

I dunno, I feel I have made my point.

[Darknecron]

I agree with this suggestion,



this sounds like a good gameplay dynamic imo, let the Sabots go through buildings like the 50cals do, HEAT can't but has the radius, so its balanced and interesting.

Hell yes!

[ytman]

Imagine a molotov (basically a small and much weaker version of JDAM).

Imagine a Heat round doing only kill damage at 2-3 meters and decreasing damage up until 4-6m.

This should account for shrapnel, concussion, and debris damage.

Kashan Bunkers should be fine with those dimensions unless you are shooting inside it... in which case that sounds realistic.

In anycase I do wish to see some sort of work around of damage through walls.