AT unbalance

Gran · Post by **Gran** » 2006-02-18 19:11

There is very few ways to make it fair for infantry (besides keeping a good balance of AT kits) if they meet an APC/Tank head on. I really wish you could do away with the AT kit entirelly and give maybe two other kits, I let the speculation and argueing figure that out, the AT-4. This is how its done in RL. An AT-4 isn't very heavy and the launcher can be dropped after its used. Just give it as an extra weapon. When you give people thier normal assault rifle and an AT-4 you will have more of an anti-armor capabilty, and not give people a crappy kit like the AT guys are stuck with. I know they get so many AT missles to use so the kit is nerfed, that sucker is heavy after all. But just give a couple kits an AT-4 in addition to thier normal load out, maybe get two SF kits, one with C-4 and one with the AT-4? Just an idea.

Skullening.Chris · Post by **Skullening.Chris** » 2006-02-18 19:27

Yeah, I'd rather have AT-4s and RPG-26s than that stupid magically-respawning-in-your-hands Eryx.

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-18 19:33

Yeah RPG!

Figisaacnewton · Post by **Figisaacnewton** » 2006-02-18 19:55

I also hope we can ditch these SRAWs and Eryxs and instead have AT4s, SMAWs, RPGs, etc. Maybe ONE special SRAW pick up kit in SOME levels.

Rifleman · Post by **Rifleman** » 2006-02-18 20:05

magically-respawning-in-your-hands Eryx.

/me likes magic...

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-02-18 20:46

Yeah, have SRAWs, Eryx's, RPG-26's, and maybe Javelins on maps that have many MBTs.

Give combatants AT-4s, SMAWs (different from SRAW), RPG-7's and RPG-26's on maps maps that have maybe one or two MBTs and tend to emphasize on APCs and light vehicles (HMMWVs, vans, technicals).

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-02-18 21:22

I'd really like it if they had a dedicated AT with a javelin and a few extra missles which could potentially kill an mbt with one hit to the top and maybe disable it(make it burn) if hit in the rear. The dedicated AT guy would carry only a pistol. Edit* Another great thing about the javelin is can be used against helicopters because it's uses IR to guide. It would give the dedicated AT class another role being anti-chopper.

The other anti tank kit would be the assualt kit, they would carry an AT4 and would be able to disable a light armored vehicle like an apc or anti air vehicle with one hit, and scare a tank, but not destroy it outright. This guy would carry the standard assualt weapon(though maybe not a nade launcher with it).

A medium anti tank kit could be made with a smaw and a few missles I guess, maybe give them an smg, though I don't know if this would be realistic.

This I guess would only work for the U.S. and maybe some other allies of ours, but I'm sure equivelant weapons could be found for the Chinese and PLA.

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-02-18 21:27

yeah id love to see a mix of all these. mmm the mention of a map with "lots of MBTs" makes me think of Darfur in the POE mod, man i loved that stage.

i think maybe every squad or two should have a guy with 1 AT-4, and they just get more ammo from a supply guy.

anything is better then a guy somehow carrying 5 enourmous rockets.

also it would be nice to see an emphasis on WHERE you hit the tank, it would be cool if a hit ot the tracks would disable a tank from moving. i dont know RL sweet spots on a tank, but maybe have a certain spot that if you hit it destroys the tank in one hit, then have another spot that takes 2 hits.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-02-18 21:57

I don't think one or two hits from AT weapons in non-vital areas should not destroy the tank. Maybe just disable its movement, computers (not being able to lase a target), and ability to turn its turret. This would make it pretty useless, especially if it couldn't turn the turret or move.

Certain spots should be one hit kills, depending on the weapon. Most hits to the rear should disable the tank.

In certain instances, the tank should explode.

In Generation Kill, an AT-4 hit an auxiliary fuel tank on a T-72 and the thing just exploded.

I think if a really powerful weapon, such as a Javelin, hits the top of a turret, the tank should explode (like in that video)

Zantetsuken · Post by **Zantetsuken** » 2006-02-19 00:14

Not exactly about rockets, but if the PRMM team could make it so about 2 or 3 shots to a tank's rear fuel drums from the 50 caliber weapons (specifically the pre-mod M95 or if you guys are using the M82 or whatever). The real life point of these 50 caliber weapons isnt at all to use it for anti-infantry (talk bout overkill, a simple 7.62 or 5.56 will suffice for anti-infantry) - but instead to use the .50 rifles for taking out fuel dumps, radar cabins, and penetrating the armor's armor. If you go take a look at world.guns.ru and look up the IWS 2000, you'll find the specs claim "At 1000 meters this projectile will penetrate a 40 mm of RHA (rollded homogenous steel armour) and will result in serious secondary fragmentation effect behind the armour. That said, it will penetrate two walls of any modern APC at one kilometer range.".

Basically, I wanna be able to use a .50 cal rifle for its intended purpose and shoot the **** outta Jeeps, APCs, and repeated shots (maybe half the sniper's total mag count) to, say, a Radar station in game and blow it up or disable it (sparks maybe?)

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-19 01:14

the problem is as far as i know the game engine doesn't support addition of component parts to the objects. A tank is a single object, a chopper as well, and so other vehicles. It has sides, but no components... it's a single object.

Hell, if we can actually add components to vehicles, balancing them would be hell a lot easier. And infantries with anti material rifle would be able to do serious business with light armoured vehicles.

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-02-19 10:09

Cerberus wrote:I don't think one or two hits from AT weapons in non-vital areas should not destroy the tank. Maybe just disable its movement, computers (not being able to lase a target), and ability to turn its turret. This would make it pretty useless, especially if it couldn't turn the turret or move.

Certain spots should be one hit kills, depending on the weapon. Most hits to the rear should disable the tank.

In certain instances, the tank should explode.

In Generation Kill, an AT-4 hit an auxiliary fuel tank on a T-72 and the thing just exploded.

I think if a really powerful weapon, such as a Javelin, hits the top of a turret, the tank should explode (like in that video)

good call

DelTaGC · Post by **DelTaGC** » 2006-02-19 14:15

IRL most of the assault troops have some guys with AT.
I've read in this forum that they only have a pistol, but that's not true in my contry : they have their assault rifle like everyone + one disposable AT launcher.

I think it isn't possible in BF2 to unlock an assault+AT class for every 3 normal assault class, in the way VietCong2 handle the classes ratio in its multiplayer mode

Post by **fuzzhead** » 2006-02-19 15:41

Guys Im prety sure they are adding a rifleman class, with 1 disposable AT weapon.

As well as a dedicated AT kit, with large AT weapon and just pistol.

{YBBS}Sage · Post by **{YBBS}Sage** » 2006-02-19 18:24

Zantetsuken wrote:If you go take a look at world.guns.ru and look up the IWS 2000, you'll find the specs claim "At 1000 meters this projectile will penetrate a 40 mm of RHA (rollded homogenous steel armour) and will result in serious secondary fragmentation effect behind the armour. That said, it will penetrate two walls of any modern APC at one kilometer range.".

Go check my reply to your other post about shooting tanks with .50 and 12.7mm first.

http://realitymod.com/forum/showthread. ... #post62848

.50-type weapons will do **** to a MBT. I'm trying to find an armor-thickness for things like the LAV and Bradley, but can't. Either way, I'm pretty sure that you'd be safe from the big, bad half-inchers sitting inside one.

(I did find out that Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armor in Desert Storm than M1 tanks did!)

Back on topic...

I like the idea someone had of getting rid of AT class and issuing 1 AT weapon each to different kits (rifleman, medic, whatever.) It's in another thread.

CplMilhouse · Post by **CplMilhouse** » 2006-02-19 21:56

RE: The Javelin Video

That javelin video was a promotional feature produced by the manufacturers. The tank was packed with explosives and detonated when the missile hit. A modern AT weapon will feature a shaped-charge warhead that forces all the power and pressure from the explosion into a tiny jet to penetrate the armor of an MBT. Once inside, it essentially fills the interior with molten metal and superheated gas. Go read up on it.

.50's against a tank: While a .50 won't do any significant harm to a tank (other than destroying lenses and other such things that can't really be modeled in-game) it will defenitely have a field day with LAV's. The Stryker IFV has about 1/2 inch of armor. thats it. A .50 will make swiss cheese out of any of the less armored (IE the wheeled) vehicles.

Also just a side note. In the world of the armored, pure kinetic energy (IE a big chunk of lead) hitting the side of a tank is enough to stun the crew. This would be things like a solid 105 round and the like. The tankers refer to it as "it may not penetrate, but that'll defenitly ring his bell".

-Scott

Zantetsuken · Post by **Zantetsuken** » 2006-02-20 00:36

on mentioning how a 50cal AMR would Swiss Cheese a APC/Stryker, why dont the 50cal M2HBs in BF2 make minced meat outta the same APCs? The bullets have the same amount of powder in em right (unless the AMRs use magnums)?