XAHTEP39 wrote:Maybe not so radical?
For example, TOW is available, but 2 HATs for the team.
But you have to remember that we currently have Lat's spam, and 2 hats may seem like an interesting idea, but our combat environments are much more complex not only having tanks, but also apcs and ifvs, these would be completely annihilated if we met 2 Hats plus the current lat's spam. (Even more so with maps where armored support comes down to only apcs and ifvs.)
It would be interesting to have a staggered model of damage to the atgms, adding strategic variety and realism to the game, there is a lot of information spread about it that could be used.
Just as an example:
Atgms with 300 to 600mm penetration post ERA, maintain current model for the front arc, 50% damage for sides and back, 90% fire or kill for top ?, instant kills for apcs and ifvs.
Atgms with 600+ at 8 ~~ mm rha penetration post ERA, front arc 60%, sides and rear heavy damages if less than 800mm and fire or critical damage, if greater than 800mm, top kills.
Atgms with 900mm + rha penetration post ERA, heavy damage to front arc, kill to sides, rear and top. (front arc Possible disable in most of mbts, fire on some mbts?)
(As far as I know in the PR today the highest atgm penetration values are 9m119 and Lahat, reaching 900mm rha penetration, post ERA.)
Atgms 1000mm +, kills ... (For a possible future milan-ER, spike-ER or 9m123
) (Hits on the front arc of most towers here should not mean a kill, as well reduced damage compared to the chassis for all other atgms.)
Some modern mbt can present 2000mm + rha frontal arc protection against HEAT ammunition, so not even the 1000mm + atgm could penetrate frontally .... but as in PR we are dealing with damage and not penetration, it is difficult to know what to say in these cases ...
These values that I suggest serve for the current concept of PR, if a concept of damage simulating penetration was adopted , then in these cases there should be 0% of damage or minor just to represent possible damage to externals intruments.
- In cases of penetration would be fire, disabling or instantaneous kill.
A problem would be the ERA, since I believe that the engine does not support the removal of the reactive blocks from the area after a hit.
Of course, it would look much better with an independent damage model and individual survival capacities for each MBT, these values would not be absolute for all, simple concepts can be applied, as we know many mbt's today have extremely hardened towers frontal arches to Give effectiveness to the hulldown tactics, but more complex damage meshes and damage rate that each mbt receives for each varying atgm, only if the devs Can still wring blood from a stone of that engine. you can devs? heh ,
Addition of variety and realistic asymmetrical balance will always be welcome!
Thank you very much devs for the great work on this update, keep up the good work.
Edit: But after all this we can still go back and close a cycle of thinking, if the mbts' average resistance against heat penetrators, the average penetration value of the modern atgms, so we can presume non-penetration into the front arc , But because the engine can not simulate the loss of the external instruments, which would surely happen after multiple hits of atgm, without them for game mechanics means is simulated as dead tank, well thought out for the current concept of atgm damages.
