MBT balancing

[ghoststorm11]

Hello fellow pr players:

The latest release has added some great units, weapons, and maps. I have, however, noticed that balancing (When both sides have equal firepower) is becoming an issue. My first issue is with the tanks being balanced in Kashan Desert. Why does the MEC have Russia's current generation battle tank? They should be using older technology that is inferior to the US M1A2 Abrams. The addition of the T-90 MBT to the MEC has seeming gotten rid of the US advantage in armor warfare. When I am driving a tank (the only thing I do on PR), I get a thrill out of an older T-72 tank killing an Abrams tank (in the .8 version) which we do quite often by strategic driving and well placed rear armor shots. This is no longer the case because everything is equal. I loved this game because of its unequal assets. The US does have an advantage over the MEC, and it should be portrayed this way. I have noticed that there is a slight advantage towards the T-90 because of its lower silhouette and lower center of gravity (as it feels from the tanks). I have also noticed that it now takes the same amount of round to kill each tank. The Abrams uses depleted uranium armor which is much denser. This gives the disadvantage to the T-series MBT, and it should be portrayed in this way. We have observed that it takes 4 to 5 direct hits to kill an enemy tank. The real life observation is that it takes 1 to maybe 3 direct kits to kill a take (1 hit if back armor, 1 if top armor, 1 if between the turret and the tanks hull, 1-3 if front armor is hit, 1-2 is side armor is hit, 1 hit if the tracks are hit)

My second issue is with how tanks are destroyed. When I see my gunner score a direct hit to a T-90 or Abrams rear armor, it should not take 1 or 2 more shots to kill the tank. It should disable the engine and the tank should come to a halt. Also, I see a direct hit to the enemy's top armor (from the top), this should as well disable the tank if not kill the crew inside the tank. Also, the army uses "mobility kills" to disable enemy tanks. While pr does do this to some extent, the event of a mobility kill is not portrayed accurately. A direct side hit to any tanks tracks or suspension system will effectively disable the tank on that track. Although the tanks main gun and engine are still operational, the damage would severely inhibit the injured tank's mobility. I would like to see this done more in project reality. It would mean that drivers/gunners would think about where they attack/defend from and put more strategy into tank operation.

My last issue is a major issue:
Why do air vehicles (jets, helicopters) survive a direct HEAT or SABOT round to the hull or to any part of the aircraft. My gunner and I have observed on numerous occasions that helicopters and jets survive a direct hit to the air vehicle. Air vehicles are just flying aluminum cans and they are easily destroyable from heavy weapons fire. If a tank hits a black hawk helicopter with a SABOT round, it should be dead instantly. The same goes for any jets that are hit. This would make it so pilots would be more cautious of there position relative to armor.
For added excitement, if a black hawk (or any helicopter) is hit in the tail rotor, it lose control and start a lateral spin. I would like to see this done in future versions.


Ghoststorm11 and 14thunder20

[Zimmer]

So what you mean is that a country litteraly swimming in money should get ww1 tanks? TBH I thiink alot of people see MEC as a underdog, but sorry MEC is like the biggest oil producers in the world and should have no problems buying the best of the best as MEC is a colabiration of alot states you can imagine what sort of welt there is in such a big oil producing country.

The other things you mentiones is hardcoded as you describe it. Yes in local when a chopper gets hit it will spin around, but it dosent work online. To hit a certain place and then the tank will loose its engine etc. is also hardcoded, you can only set that if the tank gets badly hit you will either disable the turret or make the tank go slower afaik.

besides the suggestion forum is locked for a reason
Its not to get suggestion right away when a guy havent even tried 0.85 or just been slightly into a server.

[Deadfast]

You're mixing T90 and T72.

T90 was in 0.80 and before and T72 is the new model.

[$kelet0r]

1. The MEC is not Iraq - it is a fictional superpower, equal if not superior to the US
2. Hit specific damage is not possible on this engine as the BF2 engine uses hitpoints, not localised damage effects
3. Aircraft are instantly destroyed by tank shells ingame - poor latency or hit detection is why they would survice. Again, a BF2 engine problem.

[Alex6714]

Helicopters in PR get shot down way to much by these rounds, but what you say of a direct hit not doing anything is simply the hitboxes. It looks like you hit it, but you did´t.

[Hresvelgr]

Also, to the extent of my knowledge the T90 is basically a souped up T72 that's not too expensive. Really, I heard Cyprus, Venezuela, and Lebanon are thinking about getting some. If anything the MEC should get the T-90's back at least when Russia gets the T-80.

[SocketMan]

Yea it's T-72 now for the MEC,BMP3 is more fun however

[sentinel]

I think that all maps should be balanced, just to avoid the huge teamwiching mania in the begining of matches. IT-72 is inferior so it's spawntime should be only half of the abrams spawntime or there should be twice as many of them.

[Sturnn]

I love the challenger 2 in Project Reality, but there are a few issues with it, only that it has chobham armour and a round from a chinese tank shouldnt kill it instantly...but anyway, just let the PR Team do what they can, to balance the game and everything...

why not play Forgotten Hope 2 if you want to fight tank on tank combat, at least when your in a sherman tank in the desert the 88mm Anti-Tank/Aircraft gun kills you in 1 shot, now thats realistic!.

[xseeyax]

Ok, one key thing you have to remember here ghoststorm......IT'S A GAME! It's supposed to be fun which it is. Adding some accurate mobility kills and some different weaker tanks is not going to make that ANY funner. It's a good thing that there are "mobility kills at all" so please everyone enjoy the game, .85 is great and there really shouldn't be any complaints except for bugs. Plus this is an old game a really old game so I think this is the best probably you will get out of it. I don't mean to beat around the bush but we could be playing vanilla right now. I think it's a good game and I am totally enjoying it and thank you Devs.

[R.J.Travis]

Well truly a US M1A2 Abrams should be able to just laugh at a T-90 MBT as its shooting at it and the round just bounces off if it is in the fount armor all day long.

I want to see oh wait I can say b/c its a suggesting i'll post soon as the suggestions open stay tuned!

[Cobhris]

It was always that way. The tanks were given equal damage and armor for balancing, but I think they might change that later.

And MEC should not have old rusty tanks. They are an oil-rich newly-born superpower, not an Iraq/Taliban clone. I'm tired of people saying "MEC iz poor becus they is A-RABS!" Which they aren't even, most people agree that MEC includes Iran too.

[sentinel]

I don't think RL abrams crew are that confident about their armor when facing T-90. Think that the abrams armor isn't the one making the difference in combat, but the more advanced targeting system would give it a better chance to get the first shot. Thats why T-90 has reactive armor to counter this. And the more electronics you put into any vehicle more things there are to be broken in combat and if you think about the money issues T-90 is 3 times cheaper than abrams, so it could be facing 3 targets instead of one.

[Outlawz7]

Which they aren't even, most people agree that MEC includes Iran too.

Who agrees? I recall tons of posts describing the difference between Arabs and Persians and why they could never be allied.

[charliegrs]

who says it has to be balanced?

[Outlawz7]

2. Hit specific damage is not possible on this engine as the BF2 engine uses hitpoints, not localised damage effects

Yes it is, how else would you be able to take down a tank with two Sabots to the back while front takes 5-6?

I think you confused it with vehicle disabling which does rely on hitpoints and is completely random.

[Tirak]

who says it has to be balanced?

Play Forgotten Hope II some time in a Crusader against a Panzer III or IV and you'll know why I'm against this sort of tank imbalance. You can sit there all day long pounding the enemy in the side or rear, but he shoots you once in the front and you go down. Now add in to the fact PR has 20 minute tank respawns, and no one would want to play MEC armor. If there is a way to have asymmetrical balance with a Tank in the BF2 engine, I haven't seen it.

[R.J.Travis]

Balancing a tank to kill a Abrams Is a bad call IRL you would not shoot at a tank that could kick your *** with out first flanking and disabling the superior tank they need to make the Weak crapy tanks just as they are cheap and crapy yes they have money that dose not mean where going to sell them a better tank to kill are tanks lol thats what i get from you people "there rich they got money they can buy tank blue prints of allied tanks to make balanced tanks"

the thing is even with all there money they cant get better tanks because No one will sell them one!

thats like saying hey where at war with you but we will give you 1234billon in cash if you give us the blue prints of your tank so you stop wining the war.

Its not that they cant buy a better tank its they don't known how to build a better tank!

UNLOCK the suggestion forum i got like 40 suggesting about this topic aloneZ!!!!

[ghoststorm11]

1. The MEC is not Iraq - it is a fictional superpower, equal if not superior to the US...

This game is called Project Reality. The reason MEC was made is to represent a power large enough to take the on the US. The game we play is not vanilla BF2. It is called project reality for a reason. If an MEC were to exsist, they would be comprised of Iranians and a bunch of smaller countries that want to do damage to the US (like the Taliban faction). The point being is that there is no such super power as the MEC. And to agree with an earlier post, just because they have a lot of money, does not mean that they can buy current generation battle tanks. As commonly known, the middle east lacks superior armor and weapons. This is why they still use AK style weapons as well as SCUD missile systems. They just cannot afford or engineer some military unit that the west has already thought of. I am not dogging on middle eastern countries, but the US and NATO countries historically have stayed ahead of Middle Eastern countries' military technology. So yes, there should be an imbalance of tank ability. I enjoyed playing as the underdog "MEC" tank while consistently and successfully beating a full squad of 3 Abrams with just our 1 tank. The fact is, is that reality is not even, and the game should show this. This is what sets pr apart from every FPS in that is should be unbalanced. Games that are balanced seem to lose their luster after a while because the individual games are played the same every time. I like unbalancing, it makes seem more real and personal to me. When an A-10 shreds my tank, it feels real. I do not want the tanks to be more armored to balance the A-10 kill capability. The same goes for the tank vs. tank option. If you do research on the Abrams, the depleted uranium armor has been know to survive multiple direct front armor hits from an enemy T-72 as well as a RPG (MarineCorps.com | Spotlight: M1 Abrams), and it still has survived. I'm not saying that it should be this uber, but the game should show realistic armor. Yes the T-90 is comparable to the M1A2, but the MEC doesn't exist. Lastly, Middle Eastern countries do not have current generation battle tanks. This should go into Project Reality.

[Saarna]

Middle East covers quite a few countries with various weaponry, and as no one has specified who the MEC really are, they might very well be compromised of the more militarily advanced bunch. Just to say that there is no modern military technology in all of Middle East is just plain wrong.

Staying in tanks for instance, Oman has Challenger 2's, United Arab Emirates field Leclercs, while Kuwait, Egypt and Saudi Arabia ALL field various versions of the mighty Abrams itself. And to repeat myself, who's to say not one of these countries would be joining/forced into a fictional coalition in a computer game?