Some general thoughts (on armor!)

[Hunt3r]

I love tanks. I love comparing tanks, playing virtual representations of them, and listening to the sound of them. It soothes me. I would've never questioned this in PR, this gameplay that I loved so much, if it weren't for the pictures.

So one day, while relaxing after school, when I was googling information about tanks, which I might specify, have no actual information on them, but instead, comparing tanks to other tanks, written by people who have no goddamn idea about these tanks to begin with, but for some reason, this soothes me.

And then one day, I saw some photos of Steel Beasts. They weren't very good pictures, it was just demonstrating some game features. But I downloaded them, and I kept going back to them. And then I began to think.

And that's a problem with any faith.

I began to watch some more videos of Steel Beasts, and I bought the thing a year ago. That's when I realized that PR's AFV combat was horribly, horribly flawed. When there is no such thing as an FCS, no such thing as deflecting and bouncing shots, no such thing as proper FLIR, no realistic ability to call in artillery, no ability to pop the hatch and look out, I start to realize that perhaps, the realism wasn't so real after all.

Then I started playing World of Tanks. This was supposed to be the very antithesis of realism, Call of Duty for tanks, but as I kept playing, I started to realize that this game was more realistic than PR would ever be, at least with tanks. When module damage and crewmember damage was realistically modeled, with fires, ammo racking, and angle-dependent armor penetration, I started to realize that this was what I was looking for.

But it was all so sterile. You might as well be alone in these games, because there is no infantry to support, no infantry anti-tank guns, or any infantry at all. That's where it falls down. So right now, the question might be what the point of all of this is, because so far all we've talked about is why, but the thing is, PR's basic modeling of ground combat is nothing near realistic.

[MaSSive]

Non armor related



Close to real? I thought so. Now is this possible in PR? Yeah thought so.

To implement all what you're saying here, it would need to be so complex, so they would be rather making a whole new game, then fixing this one. I believe so.

[Rhino]

Yes we know all of this

The problem is the BF2 engine, as its only designed to do real basic stuff for tanks in BF2 and we have to work with what the engine can and can't do. Some of what you say is possible but would require a massive workaround to include it and simply isn't worth it at the end of the day and other stuff just simply isn't possible...


I just hope you don't go off and play a flight sim


At the end of the day, IMO anyways, the unrealistic elements of our vehicles and even infantry are trumped many times over by being able to do combined arms, having all those elements together on one battlefield in one game and all being controlled by other players in the game that you can do teamwork with makes it all worth it at the end of the day.

[ShockUnitBlack]

FH2 has deflection and the ability to pop out of the turret (sort of)...

@Mods - Not that I'm saying anything about PR and FH2.

[Rhino]

and the ability to pop out of the turret (sort of)...

Not seen that, but I'm guessing its not the player actually turning out and then able to get shot and dies if he dose and more just a camera change with probably no hatch opening as well?

[YankeeSamurai]

Well, what about the deflection? In your opinion, is that feasible?

[Rhino]

It would be good to have but I dunno how FH2 has managed it and we currently have no one in the team able to look into implementing it.

[DutchMasterr]

aav's in real life have mounted mk19's and m240s....both of which pr doesnt do very well lol. anyway, aav stands for assault amphibious vehicle and theres a reason they arent really used in combat all that much...most of where the usmc fights is desert! several years back in iraq anybody in the marines deployed to iraq who was part of an aav unit was just turned into provisional infantry and left their aav's in a parking lot. not much amphibious assaulting to be done when there are better vehicles to take its place in some situations.

also the game is small-scale thats why there are mortars and no artillery. in real life tanks generally move at company size level which is alot more than 3 or 4 and thats all you get.

also this game is like 7 years old. the mechaniccs are outdated...play the game for what its worth!

[Sgt. Mahi]

Coming to PR thinking it's "realistic" is a common mistake for new players. None of the vehicles handle like they do in real life but as Rhino said it's the combined arms that make PR feel realistic because of the teamwork between the different players/vehicles.
Now if PR2 can handle all these realistic parameters for vehicles and infantry I have no doubt that we may be looking at a whole new game concept that will appeal to many mature players. Honestly if PR2 is going to be all that we dream of I think it could be a Game of the Year when(if?) it comes out, since the number of adult/mature players are drastically increasing every year. Gaming is going to be for every age class in the future and the mature players will welcome something like PR2 because of the potentiel for a great community and teamwork orientated gameplay.

[sweedensniiperr]

can't you make it so that the driver (or gunner) press ctrl and he pops out of the tank? inverted turret mechanism..? or would he be only able to look in one direction?

[ShockUnitBlack]

Not seen that, but I'm guessing its not the player actually turning out and then able to get shot and dies if he dose and more just a camera change with probably no hatch opening as well?

Yep, exactly.

[J.F.Leusch69]

aav's in real life have mounted mk19's and m240s....both of which pr doesnt do very well lol. anyway, aav stands for assault amphibious vehicle and theres a reason they arent really used in combat all that much...most of where the usmc fights is desert! several years back in iraq anybody in the marines deployed to iraq who was part of an aav unit was just turned into provisional infantry and left their aav's in a parking lot. not much amphibious assaulting to be done when there are better vehicles to take its place in some situations.

also the game is small-scale thats why there are mortars and no artillery. in real life tanks generally move at company size level which is alot more than 3 or 4 and thats all you get.

also this game is like 7 years old. the mechaniccs are outdated...play the game for what its worth!

whats wrong with the AAVs arming?

we do actually have a MK19 and a M2 like it has in RL.

[tankninja1]

I have some bad comments about how current, mostly Western tanks, are in-game
1. ATGMs are way too effective on Leopard 2s, Challenger 2s, and Abrams, since ,according to my research, the current Russian and Chinese ATGMs can only penatrate 900mm of steel armor while the Leopard 2s, Challenger 2s, and Abrams have a minimum of about 1000mm of armor protection against HEAT type rounds
2. The APFSDST 120mm rounds arn't as effective as they are IRL, in-game it takes 2-3 rounds to kill any other tank, sometimes 1 if its a T-72, when IRL the oldest a1 version of the m829 is estimated to be able to penetrate 600mm of armor, since the the newer versions are said to be more effective 700mm or greater but no more than 1000mm
3. Challenger 2 is way too loud, on Vadso City is was able to hear it from 1000m away with a 300-500m tall hill between him and me and I could still hear him as if he was right next to me
4. Thermals/FLIR abilities too see through dust is underrated especially again in western apcs and tanks
5. Don't even know if its possible to program but some tanks have blowout hatches that, if the ammo explodes, directs the energy up away from the tank, and away from the crew

[Brainlaag]

I have some bad comments about how current, mostly Western tanks, are in-game
1. ATGMs are way too effective on Leopard 2s, Challenger 2s, and Abrams, since ,according to my research, the current Russian and Chinese ATGMs can only penatrate 900mm of steel armor while the Leopard 2s, Challenger 2s, and Abrams have a minimum of about 1000mm of armor protection against HEAT type rounds
2. The APFSDST 120mm rounds arn't as effective as they are IRL, in-game it takes 2-3 rounds to kill any other tank, sometimes 1 if its a T-72, when IRL the oldest a1 version of the m829 is estimated to be able to penetrate 600mm of armor, since the the newer versions are said to be more effective 700mm or greater but no more than 1000mm
3. Challenger 2 is way too loud, on Vadso City is was able to hear it from 1000m away with a 300-500m tall hill between him and me and I could still hear him as if he was right next to me
4. Thermals/FLIR abilities too see through dust is underrated especially again in western apcs and tanks
5. Don't even know if its possible to program but some tanks have blowout hatches that, if the ammo explodes, directs the energy up away from the tank, and away from the crew

1) Balancing, needs to be fair on both sides (take a look at the T-90, extremely fucked up on rough terrain and slow, has also many weak spots while the Leopard 2 has none). Fun > Realism.
2) Once again Fun > Realism.
3) Can't comment on that.
4) I think I've heard it is a bug indeed that you can't see through dust, otherwise engine limitation.
5) Don't really understand what that is for but I guess engine limitations.

Edit: *Dust/dirt not smoke

[40mmrain]

1) fun > realism fun >realism fun > realism durr durr.

there are far better options for balancing than making all the stats of all the counterparts for every faction the exact same. For example, in real life Leopard 2a6 >> T90, so we replicate that in game, give the germans 2 tanks, and the russians three. There, it's balanced, and the game is realistic, everyone is happy. Making everything the same, and everything symmetrical is so boring. A good example of how this can work in practice is muttrah city. How, oh how is it that the marines get multiple trans choppers, 2 attack helos, and far superior armour pieces compared to the enemy, yet the map is totally balanced? Simple, the MEC start with more flags, and the terrain doesnt.

Im not even saying that PR makes everything too similar, im just saying that assets can be totally different but map layout, etc. can make it fair.

[ShockUnitBlack]

It's not really imbalanced. Currently crew skill is the decider of tank battles, not how much armour you're pimping around Kashan with - which is exactly how it should be.

Plus nobody's ever actually seen a Leopard 2 go up against a T-90, so it's all hypothetical.

Oh, and sometimes one faction can make up for a deficiency in one area by having an advantage in another. EG - the MEC might have the relatively poor T-72, but then they have the awesome BMP-3, so it works out in the end.

For more insight into this, take a look at how they balanced a multiplayer RTS game like Company of Heroes.

[BroCop]

On the point of deflection...isnt this a vBF2 feature? I am pretty sure deflection is present (IIRC on the front sides of the skirts)

[SGT.Ice]

I love tanks. I love comparing tanks, playing virtual representations of them, and listening to the sound of them. It soothes me

I'm disturbed by that statement.

there are far better options for balancing than making all the stats of all the counterparts for every faction the exact same. For example, in real life Leopard 2a6 >> T90, so we replicate that in game, give the germans 2 tanks, and the russians three. There, it's balanced, and the game is realistic, everyone is happy. Making everything the same, and everything symmetrical is so boring. A good example of how this can work in practice is muttrah city. How, oh how is it that the marines get multiple trans choppers, 2 attack helos, and far superior armour pieces compared to the enemy, yet the map is totally balanced? Simple, the MEC start with more flags, and the terrain doesnt

But MEC only starts with "a flag".

[Arnoldio]

Balancing in terms of vehicle performance its nonsense. You either fix it up wich adding more of the weaker assets OR just go with asymetrical layout, so there is more "story" to it, not just 1:1.

[Brainlaag]

there are far better options for balancing than making all the stats of all the counterparts for every faction the exact same. For example, in real life Leopard 2a6 >> T90, so we replicate that in game, give the germans 2 tanks, and the russians three. There, it's balanced, and the game is realistic, everyone is happy. Making everything the same, and everything symmetrical is so boring. A good example of how this can work in practice is muttrah city. How, oh how is it that the marines get multiple trans choppers, 2 attack helos, and far superior armour pieces compared to the enemy, yet the map is totally balanced? Simple, the MEC start with more flags, and the terrain doesnt.

Im not even saying that PR makes everything too similar, im just saying that assets can be totally different but map layout, etc. can make it fair.

Uhm, go through the post I've quoted and my actual answers. I said I agree with the current imbalance of some assets.

Taking the T-90 vs Leopard 2 as an example. It's fine that the T-90s have ATGMs, because the Leopard 2 accelerates faster, is much more stable on rough terrain and has basically no "one-hit-spot" like many other tanks do. Also, most of the time Russians/Chinese get less heavy armor than other factions do.

So please read before you start quoting people's posts as "herp derp" BS, k?