TOW damage to front armor

[camo]

Up to the mods but given it's a feedback thread on something a number of people have opinions about it will probably stay open for now.

[DogACTUAL]

It seems that outside of this thread noone is actually mad at the armor update, tanks still get rekt and still have to watch out for TOWs, although more AT options would be a welcome addition.

[Brozef]

Just limit it to 1 static ATGM per team and give them 2 HAT kits, those stationary ones are death traps most of the time anyway.

[fecht_niko]

I dont think that giving more AT i.e. HATs is the solution. Imagine Jabal with 2 HATs...

Yesterday I drove into a TOW but before the guy could fire (thx to firedelay) I turned the front towards it, we got hit (not even smoking) killed him and wiped everything next to him.

[inb4banned]

Similar to Niko our Tank drove on top of a TOW (we had no clue anything was there) and before he could fire we killed him. Then a HAT flanked us all the way around, but before he could fire I turned front armor to him, he hit us and we took almost no damage. We then proceeded to kill 12 people around the FOB. I am far from being a great driver but stuff like this is still effortless.

You guys claim this changes somehow promote teamwork, but you completely ignore the teamwork required by the tank. Their awareness can be 0, just driving around maps, facing front armor to whatever nerfed HAT or TOW there is.

But it's Ok because those people don't even know this forums exists to they won't come here and complain.

[DogACTUAL]

Fair point, maybe do a survey that reaches for people.

[Murphy]

I think most asset whores can agree that Tank vs Infantry balance has gone south. Tank vs Tank or Tank vs CAS balance is where it should be, but the infantry are really in a bad spot as far as AT stands. The launch delay on TOWs and HATs might be the biggest culprit when it comes to skewed balance. In a situation where both AT gunner and Tank crew become aware of the other at the exact same moment all advantages are given to the Tank.

AP/HEAT rounds will always make it to their target before the AT launch delay is over, and any munitions fired at Infantry will be 100% effective (even a missed shot will force the infantry to find cover). On the other hand LAT kits to the side/rear are more effective, but beyond that AT has been slowly nerfed to the point where it is basically ineffective unless you have massive situational advantage. That is the only real advantage an Infantry Squad has, the ability to hear the enemy Armour rolling around. This is null point when you consider that said Armour will have plenty of Squad Leaders spread around the objectives to provide them with intel. How accurate this information is will have an impact on the Tank Crew, which makes the "Fog of War" the only unknown variable for them.

I will agree that there is an issue to be addressed here, but giving more HATs or facilitating the deployment of TOW emplacements is a band-aid solution not something I feel has actual staying power on a design level. The values of damage and the effect projectiles have on Armour needs to be re-evaluated, that much is clear.

[viirusiiseli]

The launch delay on TOWs and HATs might be the biggest culprit when it comes to skewed balance.

As usual, Murphy is right on. I feel that if the fire delay were to be removed completely for gameplay reasons, along with visibility-blocking launch smoke effects, armour would meet their match again. Launch delay is usually not a big deal, but in those decisive moments where armor crews are good and aggressive, it comes down to the launch delay that the TOW often loses. That one TOW crumbling usually isn't the end of that teams plight, but the beginning.

Being able to attack a known TOW position head-on every time and win with a tank or an APC just because he wont be able to fire at you immediately is a bit ridiculous, even to an asset whore. I would rather have some challenge while destroying the enemy team than not.

Without launch delay and those visual effects, TOWs would have a lot more to work with. The previous changes wouldn't necessarily need that much more fixing either. And yes, the launch smoke has been reduced but it still has a very noticeable effect on long range shots along with fast moving targets.

And as far as I remember from previous threads, the smoke presence in real life isn't that big. It surely doesn't add anything to gameplay.

[chrisweb89]

I'd be down for removing the delay, at least for vehicle/stationary atgms, but maybe keeping them for handhelds, as they are still incredibly powerful. The launch delay doesn't stop jack in the boxing, but it makes it slightly harder and easier to suppress. As for the atgm smoke, I haven't noticed any issues in 1.4 and have made some very long range shots on moving targets. Is it just a specific atgm that doesn the smoke too much for you, or still all of them?

About the balance vs tanks. I definitely have lost a lot more tow emplacements than before because of the changes, but I've still killed just as much armour, I know its subjective but you have to be a lot smarter with where the tow gets deployed. Its useless on the flag cap where all the tanks will be looking. Not saying that there isn't room for better balance, and I've had my fair share of derp moments in a tank that I shouldn't have lived, but things aren't that bad. Plus we finally found a rway to make tanks better than ifvs with atgms.

[gwa1hir]

Plus we finally found a rway to make tanks better than ifvs with atgms.

i dont know who spreads these rumors/opinions but atgm IFVs were NEVER on par with tanks, tanks were ALWAYS superior by a good margin.

[DogACTUAL]

BMP3 disagrees. Let's pit the BMP3 with ATGM vs the Challenger 2 with AP, pre update. Both would barely survive a frontal hit and would be killed when hit in the side or back.

Yes, ATGM reload is longer than AP reload, doesn't make much difference though because whoever misses the first shot gets rekt anyway, unless the opponent was unaware of the enemy armor.

Of course BMP could easily be rekt by infantry AT weapons compared to the Challenger 2, but we are talking armor on armor combat here.

And then the IFV has much better weaponry to engage infantry in many cases more effectively than an MBT could, autocannons, grenade launchers, frag shells. All firing much faster, very hard to run away from compared to a heavy hitting, but slow firing tank cannon.

And on top of that IFVs are generally more nimble and responsive than the MBTs.

Not equally good in every aspect, but overall i would say at least the BMPs were up to par with Western MBTs pre update.

[chrisweb89]

i dont know who spreads these rumors/opinions but atgm IFVs were NEVER on par with tanks, tanks were ALWAYS superior by a good margin.

Lol nope, obviously head on a tank will win, but I've always found ifvs much more effective all around and have enjoyed using them more than tanks, and just as effectively or even more effectively as tanks. So that "rumour" as you said is based on 8 years of gameplay, but thanks for your input.

[Vista]

Lol nope, obviously head on a tank will win, but I've always found ifvs much more effective all around and have enjoyed using them more than tanks, and just as effectively or even more effectively as tanks. So that "rumour" as you said is based on 8 years of gameplay, but thanks for your input.

If you think an IFV is better than a tank because you can do an NA milsm mech inf squad, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The only 'slight' advantage an IFV has over a tank is the infantry killing capabilities, being a bit more versatile since it can spam HEAT shells around. But besides that, a tank is always better.

[chrisweb89]

What do you consider NA milsim mech inf? Me give everyone a callsign and we walk up a street in tactical formations clearing each corner and building until a tank rolls in and wipes us instantly? Because if so nope i dont touch that shit with a 10 foot pole.

Maybe I worded it poorly, before ifvs with atgms were MY personal choice for killing because they could deal with everything on the battlefield reasonably well, but now I've had to tone down the aggressiveness because I'm actually scared of tanks.

[gwa1hir]

Lol nope, obviously head on a tank will win, but I've always found ifvs much more effective all around and have enjoyed using them more than tanks, and just as effectively or even more effectively as tanks. So that "rumour" as you said is based on 8 years of gameplay, but thanks for your input.

well if you were not scared of tanks before atgm nerfs then i dunno against what tanks crews you were up against lol
because even before the atgm nertf you had to hope to somewhat ambush a tank and hope for bad intel on the enemy team. my mind here is really boggled how you would have put an IFV on par with a tank just because you can kill infantry a little bit better

yes an IFV is a flexible strong asset in the right hands but when the enemy has tanks, atgm nerf or not, the IFV is the peasant and the tank is king, always.
tanks are superior in so many ways except for the infantry part lol

IFV is worse on long range combat
IFV dies A LOT faster which is the biggest disadvantage because it limits your options in various situations
IFVs cant fight tanks head on and need to catch them off guard all the time which is almost impossible vs really good tank crews who play defensive
and the infantry killing advantage it has is there but not as big as you people make it sound. and certainly not as big as to justify saying an IFV was on par with tanks overall.
that is just ridiculous.

i mean sure i can go on FCV or HOG and rape shit with BMPs left and right including tanks, but that doesnt prove anything lol
and i really like how you went from "hey im the 8year player guy and im right look at my high horse! IFVs are as good as tanks!" to "i worded poorly its MY PERSONAL CHOICE"

also i like how these discussion derail so easily because some people come and randomly bring up infantry killing arguments when the last point of discussion was about IFV vs tank head on in a direct fight. and start an off-topic discussion about overall comparing strengths and weaknesses of tanks and IFVs

its almost as bad as the shotgun thread where people dont care for the valid points made and derailed it with crosshair bullshit. discrediting the one who brought up the arguments just because they are personally biased towards him

[Tit4Tat]

Lol nope, obviously head on a tank will win, but I've always found ifvs much more effective all around and have enjoyed using them more than tanks, and just as effectively or even more effectively as tanks. So that "rumour" as you said is based on 8 years of gameplay, but thanks for your input.

I too find IFVS more potent than tanks, gives you more options. Maps make a big difference, I'd have a puma over a Leo on silent Eagle any day, and a BMP-3 over T-72 on let's say burning Sands, but due to ATGM changes I'd probably opt for a T-72 due to view distance and terrain. Before the ATGM change, tanks would be very cautious going into an area where an IFV was spotted ( don't know what game YaddaYadds is playing) 1 hit and your out, unless luck was on your side.

[fecht_niko]

Smurf is right that it depends on the map, at least pre 1.4, a lower viewdistance favors the IFV more.

Fighting a tank on kashan as IFV isnt a smart idea...

But in 90% of the situations a tank has more advatages:
-you can 1-shot any Helicopter
-you survive a tank shell
-you survive a rocket to the front
-APCs without ATGMs cant kill you

[Mineral]

infractions given. Don't bait, don't respond to bait. Stay on topic.

Thread cleaned.

[X-Alt]

i dont know who spreads these rumors/opinions but atgm IFVs were NEVER on par with tanks, tanks were ALWAYS superior by a good margin.

Nope, autocannon>he tank rounds in cities.

They are balanced now.

[gwa1hir]

Nope, autocannon>he tank rounds in cities.

They are balanced now.

dude my context of this message was replying to the guy who was talking about fighting tanks head on. this was not about general killing abilities of infantry and shit. please read,try to understand and then post