How about giving us Engy's a better shovel?

Post by **LeadMagnet** » 2007-09-12 17:32

Outlawz wrote:Yeah, Slams or Light AT ....
Thats what most people do, because they think, it can destroy a tank...

Err, no...since the engineer is losing his C4 I was planning on dropping the mine underneath as usual then throwing a smoke on the tank to get him to move since nine times out of ten they'll mistake it for infantry trying to cover their withdrawl and move to break out of the smoke.

hx.bjoffe · Post by **hx.bjoffe** » 2007-09-12 18:07

Fuzzhead, how many L-AT can a tank take up his arse before he goes down? 20?
Do you know the number? They seem utterly useless against heavy armor...

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-09-12 18:16

hx.bjoffe wrote:Fuzzhead, how many L-AT can a tank take up his arse before he goes down? 20?
Do you know the number? They seem utterly useless against heavy armor...

4 to the rear.

14 to the front

around 10 to the sides

IIRC.

Post by **fuzzhead** » 2007-09-12 18:22

keep in mind DavidP that special forces will be a limited kit....

the idea is that NO base class has high explosives beyond grenades...

and I meant Light AT to destroy an APC or command truck. firing Light AT against a tank can be good idea too if you get behind him. Using Light AT in pairs has great effect, you fire at about the same time, and can bring a slightly damaged tank to damaged state, fire another volley and its destroyed.

Brummy · Post by **Brummy** » 2007-09-12 18:41

LeadMagnet wrote:Err, no...since the engineer is losing his C4 I was planning on dropping the mine underneath as usual then throwing a smoke on the tank to get him to move since nine times out of ten they'll mistake it for infantry trying to cover their withdrawl and move to break out of the smoke.

Or tell all squad mates to fire on the tank from hidden positions after you have placed mines

DavidP · Post by **DavidP** » 2007-09-12 20:29

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:keep in mind DavidP that special forces will be a limited kit....

the idea is that NO base class has high explosives beyond grenades...

Damn... Then what will newbies use to learn the ropes of PR? I mean the Spec-ops kit is perfect! Will you guys replace it with another kit that has a pistol and carbine? Or implement the Assitant Rifleman Idea instead?

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote: and I meant Light AT to destroy an APC or command truck. firing Light AT against a tank can be good idea too if you get behind him. Using Light AT in pairs has great effect, you fire at about the same time, and can bring a slightly damaged tank to damaged state, fire another volley and its destroyed.

What i hate about light AT is that people always seem to complain about against tanks. I mean come on it's called Light AT! You want to blow up tanks? Get a Heavy AT or RPG kit! /Mad But sometimes i do wish for an Intermediate AT kit. (Maybe 1 SRAW/ERYX rocket?)

hx.bjoffe · Post by **hx.bjoffe** » 2007-09-13 14:47

Bob_Marley wrote:14 to the front

Seems about right...

Bob_Marley wrote:4 to the rear.

Woot? It's actually that voulnerable from behind?? I got a sudden urge to try this out, L-AT became attractive once more, paired up they actually seem quite usefull!
Yeah baby yeah!

Edit: Purely out of curiosity, does anyone have the same numbers for Slams vs Tanks? Remember trying this out in .5 with a clumsy tank, but dont recall the actual number it took. Something close to 20 there as well, i think

hx.bjoffe · Post by **hx.bjoffe** » 2007-09-13 14:53

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:keep in mind DavidP that special forces will be a limited kit....

Which means the specopser will get bodyarmor, once requested?

General Dragosh · Post by **General Dragosh** » 2007-09-13 19:26

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:keep in mind DavidP that special forces will be a limited kit....

the idea is that NO base class has high explosives beyond grenades....

Cool Nice idea

Onil · Post by **Onil** » 2007-09-13 19:43

[R-DEV]dbzao wrote:It's not how we would like, but it's how the engine works... the body armor is defined by body type and not kit type.

on-topic: I would really like smokes for the engy, but we didn't have space for more items.

Take the C4 out and put smoke grenades or tripwire instead and create a limited demolition kit with 2 C4, M14 with scope and soflam more the usual field dressings. This kit is intended for stealth recon and sabotage missions.

I really dislike the slams... for a sabotage mission you need to have the power to control your explosions, if you use slams that gives you 15 seconds before it blows and that is not enough time to get more explosives and place them on other assets so you are in serious trouble after the first explosion cause you will loose the element of surprise. C4 is way better and it gives you the possibility to anticipate the enemy and use it wisely.

ReaperMAC · Post by **ReaperMAC** » 2007-09-13 23:36

hx.bjoffe wrote: Edit: Purely out of curiosity, does anyone have the same numbers for Slams vs Tanks? Remember trying this out in .5 with a clumsy tank, but dont recall the actual number it took. Something close to 20 there as well, i think

Takes about...ooh 10 SLAMs.

HABO3 · Post by **HABO3** » 2007-09-14 11:02

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:this is my proposed idea on Combat Engineer for v0.7:

OK, I kinda hate to bring this back up but it was actually in my head a couple of days ago but I'm just now getting around to replying. Removing the wrench from the Crewman and giving it to the Combat Engineer is as unrealistic as it gets. I've read books on armored warfare in WW2, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq and I cannot ever recall a Combat Engineer repairing an armored fighting vehicle that has been damaged. Crewmen for Tanks, APCs, Mobile AAs etc. are extensively trained on how to maintain their vehicles and how to make repairs under fire. Armor crewmen are, after all, the people responsible for keeping their machines in fighting condition. The role of the combat engineer is entirely different from armored crewmen and their supporting maintenance crews. If we were really mimicking reality, the crewman kit would actually repair vehicles faster than the combat engineer!

The crewmen in tanks aren't just drivers, gunners and commanders, they're expert mechanics for their vehicle as well.

I couldn't find my old thread using search but I want to quickly put forth my idea to the Devs once again.

REAR AREA TANK REPAIR STATION

A crewman can only fix a loose track and/or repair his vehicle to 50% health (subject to discussion). Thereafter, the vehicle must return to a repair station located in the rear most areas of the map to fully repair to 100% health. This mimics the act of docking the vehicle for maintenance crews to begin repairing it. Crewmen can fix loose tracks in the field (albeit in real life it can take several hours but we don't have time for that) but anything more requires the vehicle to leave the fight and go under more tedious maintenance. We already have this in place for helicopters and jets, so why not for armored fighting vehicles.

Post by **Dunehunter** » 2007-09-14 11:13

That appears to be the problem. It's not possible to limit the amount of repairing you can do (hardcoded methinks), which leads to unrealistic stuff like a tank taking a Sabot to the front, backing up behind the hill, and the gunner or driver hopping out and fixing the damage.

AnRK · Post by **AnRK** » 2007-09-14 12:14

Good point HABO, I can't really think of how to mimic the fact you'd be able to only repair tanks to a certain extent though. Perhaps if you gave the wrench alot of repair potential (comparative to how much "health" a tank has) and made the "reload" on it take alot longer time.

Really like the idea of the armour repair station(s). I'd have thought 1 would be the maximum for the amount of area covered in PR, at the moment at least.

Post by **fuzzhead** » 2007-09-14 18:51

HABO3, that might be true but you are not lookin at in in the context of gameplay, but rather the context of real life.

Okay, what is more realistic?

Scenario A) A tank crew spots enemy tank, manuevers into position, prepares to fire, enemy tank fires first and score a hit. The crew immediately pull out of the position, then JUMP OUT OF THEIR VEHICLE, bust out their wrenches, in a few seconds they have repaired the damage they sustained. They hop back in, drive to their firing position again and everything is peachy.

Scenario B) A tank crew spots enemy tank, manuevers into position, prepares to fire, enemy tank fires first and score a hit. The crew immediately pull out of the position, radio to base they have taken a hit, and pull back to a rear area to begin repairs.

I agree with a vehicle repair station, not been implemented yet, but maybe could be commander placed asset as well. Repairs are all or nothing though, no way to limit the amount a wrench can do repairs.

Yes we are aware that IRL Combat Engineer has NOTHING to do with vehicle repairs. Slowly changing the roles might make Combat Engineer in the future naming something more like Vehicle Technician. My proposal for Combat Engineer brings it much closer to that role because removing the roles aggresive nature with C4.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-09-14 20:22

i prefer

Scenario C)) A tank crew spots enemy tank, manuevers into position, prepares to fire, enemy tank fires first and score a hit , tank start burning , crew SHOULD bailt out if they dont wanna die , call for repairs , engeniers come and repair , if is to late , blow the tank (?)

AnRK · Post by **AnRK** » 2007-09-15 14:46

Is there no way of leaving the wrench in with a bare minimum of repair capability and a very long reload time until it's effective again?

00SoldierofFortune00 · Post by **00SoldierofFortune00** » 2007-09-15 18:06

ReaperMAC wrote:

They are trained in entrenching themselves, digging fox/spider holes and the like.

Exactly. Rifleman, and most Marines in the field get E-tools, which is a foldable shovel that can be used to dig trenches, which the sandbags are pretty much mirroring.