Armour values/strength

[Mikemonster]

Armour is supposed to be nigh on impossible to destroy.

Ironically though, at the moment one of the things I like about Insurgency is that if i'm in the right mood I can lonewolf and destroy enemy assets worth 100 times more than the life of my avtar. With a mine or RPG nothing is too big a target.

This has got to stop. An insurgent should not be running towards armour to see what he can do to destroy it. He should be crapping his pants and putting real estate between him and it. I'd be happy to have to fire 6x rpg's to destroy a Warrior, rather than the 'vanilla' number of three, because it would encourage them to be used more aggressively.

As for tanks.. Well.. They are the kings of the battlefield. As an Inf player I recognise it as my duty to stay the hell out of his way and make my squad do the same - It's not my duty to say 'omg request HAT trololololol - LOLZ target down!!!1 gj'

I'd like to see more [deployable] obstacles for defending against armour and make it more easy to disable a tank/APC (track it), but give armour more hit points so that it takes way more LAT's to destroy.

I feel that that way, what would happen is the armour would get used aggressively, but be hampered by roadblocks etc.
And if it got hit it would stand a fairly good chance of losing it's mobility but still be able to defend itself. After that, the focus of the round may well change to retreiving the tank/apc and repairing it, until it's fixed.

But in general, at the mo, I think armour is under-strength, and feel as an Inf player that I play accordingly (just as much a hunter as the hunted, if you understand). For me it detracts from the reality of playing as the most vulnerable asset on the battlefield (infantry).

Edit: By APC I mean something that is built to withstand anything heavier than .50 cal rounds - The BRDM, etc, I see as an armoured car and think it should actually be more vulnerable (one LAT = on fire).

[Mikemonster]

Sounds like I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning (but I didn't), didn't mean to be rude, sorry!

As for hardcoded players.. That's a good point.

[Sinbe]

The Warrior goes down with one RPG hit anywhere but the front, where it can take one and needs to rtb. In the newst version the RPG is again very accurate and available in numbers, making it impossible for the apc's to move even with infantry support any closer than 200-300m from the closest buildings and even then a good and lucky insurgent can hit you and possibly destroy you with one shot.

As the OP said, now the rpg's aren't for ambushing tanks and apc's, but for attacking them FH2 style ("omg, I hear tracks, I'm gonna go after it"). This problem is emphasized by the fact that you cannot fire through the sand dunes which makes it easy for the rpg to pop his head up behind one and put one rpg shot in before dying.

The tank on an insurgency map is still a beast, but the apc's either go down to easily or the rpg's are too readily available. On Al Basrah, if I'm not mistaken, there are two Garys, two bomb cars, two deployable spg's, one spg technical and two or three rpg's in main and two on each cache with unlimited ammo available inside the city. Plus the mines of course, but those are pretty easy to avoid. Any one of those listed, can take the mighty Warrior down with one shot making it incredibly hard to operate it effectively.

What to do then? If an rpg is really that effective in real life and the devs want to keep the damage model the way it is, there needs to be a huge decrease in the amount of rpg's, bomb cars, spg's and so on. This can be compensated by also decreasing the amount of armor on insurgency maps (three apcs and a tank on al basrah is quite a lot). The other way to change things is to make the apc able to withstand three or four rpg's, so it can support the infantry even inside the city.

On Taliban and Hamas maps there's also the problem with the heavy rpg, that can take out even a tank with one well placed shot, if I'm not mistaken. I'd like to see this kit removed completely.

And I play mostly as an insurgent on insurgency maps, so don't take this post as a blufor noob crying that he cannot use his amazing apc as a mbt. I can easily take down apc's from distance on most insurgency maps with little or no teamwork at all (you don't even need to be in squad to get an rpg) and if I fail, it causes the team one or two IP's. Something needs to be done here.

[goguapsy]

Ah, I think it is fine how it is. Honestly,to actually kill an APC with RPGs on your own (or planting a mine or IED), there are 2 requirements:

1st. You gotta be patient or lucky.
2nd. The APC crew has gotta be flipping stupid. To drive into urbanized areas... To not watch its surroundings...

I think it is fine how it is. My 2 cents.

[SoB-Rindee]

Ah, I think it is fine how it is. Honestly,to actually kill an APC with RPGs on your own (or planting a mine or IED), there are 2 requirements:

1st. You gotta be patient or lucky.
2nd. The APC crew has gotta be flipping stupid. To drive into urbanized areas... To not watch its surroundings...

I think it is fine how it is. My 2 cents.

I think what he means is he would like the armor to be more... maneuverable and supportive of the infantry. With the current setup he believes they are more limited.

I do not know, I have never driven one or received much support from one.

[Dunstwolke]

What about making APCs a bit more rugged against Light AT, but the crew inside gets a long (5-10s) supression-effect when they get hit, making it hard to return fire precisely.

[declan54321]

Challenger 2 tanks in Iraq have been known to take 60+ RPG hits before being disabled, and warriors can take nearly 10 sometimes.

Infantry should run away when they hear a tank. On dragon fly the other night (see tales from the front) my squad was holed up in a H building with a warrior plus a challenger outside. We couldn't go near the windows, and it was rather scary. I eventually destroyed the challenger with an IED that sonic_waffles had placed earlier.

[=LK= A.H.]

Armour is useless and that's the way it should be. I laugh when Challengers explode from ZiS-3 shells and tandem RPGs and when Merkavas and Namers get blown up by regular bombcars.

[Web_cole]

I am strictly an Infantryman and almost never use assets, but I definitely think that armour needs something to make it slightly more effective. At the moment on the majority of maps armour is an annoyance; it should be something that is feared.

Armour is useless and that's the way it should be.

Of course it shouldn't be useless.

[Hunt3r]

If I recall, armor can function as a moving bunker for infantry IRL when needed. In this game staying near armor is asking for a quick death.

[Rudd]

Sure IRL it can when facing a foe that isn't armed to the teeth with comparable weapons and a tonne of AT...

[BlueWoofy]

If I recall, armor can function as a moving bunker for infantry IRL when needed. In this game staying near armor is asking for a quick death.

uh.. Isn't it common practice for infantry to normally use the armor of the tank as
good protection when under heavy fire?

also this point:

"In combined operations with infantry or armored infantry, you must make certain that the arms stick close together; only so can they help each other and achieve success. Which of the two is leading is a secondary matter; what must be known is that it is the intention of the enemy to separate them and that you must prevent this in all circumstances. Your (armored units) battle cry must be "Protect the Infantry!" and the infantry's battle cry is "Protect the Tanks!"

I could be wrong..

[Hotrod525]

For anything below 25 tons (BTR/MTLB/LAV25/LAV3...) you guyz will be disappointed if R-Dev go all for realism. And some tank would be nightmare... Armor arent as strong as you think... only the newest generation are made to resist as much as tank ( Puma/CV90/etc...) As example, the old generation of MBT like the Leopard 1 C2 is made to sustain a 23mm hit, not a 125mm sabot like the Leopard 2, there was a time where quantity was more efficient than survivability.

[Mikemonster]

Fair enough, my point wasn't a realism point, but a gameplay point. I think the game would be more interesting if the armour was easier to track but far harder to actually kill.

[FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON]

nearly all semi modern mbt's ifv's and apc's are near invulnerable to STANDARD rpg's

also rpgs are incredibly effective and accurate at range in pr, while realistcly you have a low chance of hitting anything past 150m irl due to the erratic nature of the round

also at ranges between 100 and 150m the rocket has its lowest armor penetration, 9"

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA393159

[Hotrod525]

nearly all semi modern mbt's ifv's and apc's are near invulnerable to STANDARD rpg's

also rpgs are incredibly effective and accurate at range in pr, while realistcly you have a low chance of hitting anything past 150m irl due to the erratic nature of the round

also at ranges between 100 and 150m the rocket has its lowest armor penetration, 9"

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA393159

No, this aint true. A LAV25 can be easily taken out by a hitting RPG-7, and Challenger have been breach by RPG-29, both are what i would call a "standart" RPG. Since anything that is actualy a Grenade propelled by a Rocket is a RPG.

August 2006 - the driver of a Challenger 2, Trooper Sean Chance, lost three of his toes when an RPG-29 penetrated an ERA protected frontal part of the hull during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq.

And when i was talking about nightmare :
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2908679.stm]Challenger sustaining MILAN and RPG-7's at close range[/url]

[ScamTrax]

Usually when i play insurgency, i find myself operating apcs and i gotta agree Mikemonster of them begin too weak. Just last night al basrah we totally dominated british APCs with just 2 RPGs and their drivers werent that idiotic kind who just drive straight at cashe, they used them as good as they could in that scenario but as stated it only takes 2 RPGs to kill warrior, some times eaven one is enough its really hard to operate armor effectively in some maps.
But if this is the way DEVs wanna it be, then ill respect it and guess i keep trying to improve my skills.

[Nebsif]

Imo APCs are fine more or less, people just use them as wannabe-paper-CQB-tanks too often.. but tanks are somewhat weak, mah best example would be tanks gettin blown up by ~8 standard RPG-7 warheads which takes atleast 2x moar irl (CBA to sauce unless ya ask). Now let me shamelessly promote my own QQ thread about tanks: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f254-v ... tanks.html

[Phantom2]

But for gameplay reasons it should stay the same, it is difficult to kill a tank as is,