Project Reality Forums

i'll say this once more, the problem here with the behaviors of armor and other assets has nothing to do with themselves. rather the problem lies with the infantry. Do any bit of research about the military and you will see that ALL of this revolves around Infantry. This is especially the case since we are talking about supporting Infantry. This issue we need to deal with can not be any farther away from the armor we are trying to affect. It is a problem with infantry and at that a problem with the player. There is very little to motivate an infantry player to first of all request support in any way other than telling them to come blow shi* up. Under these circumstances armor is not effective. it will mostly be killed upon arrival. Infantry needs to give CAS and Armor detailed information about what they need help with and the surrounding area and KEEP in contact with the armor feeding them constant information and dealing with any threats towards the armor.

rather than trying to change the way armor works we need to change how infantry works. we need to reward infantry that calls for support and communicates with the supporting elements. IRL of course the reward is survival and victory, and penalties for not doing so are losing the armor and losing support. In Game this is not enough, we need something more tangible for a gamer.

CO spawning vehicles would be a lot like an RTS. If a new RTS like gametype was to be made, although im going to assume it would be impossible to do on BF2's frame why stop at just vehicles?

Custom vehicle loadouts, various buildable fortifications, choosing infantry classes as commander.

RTS, but the units are actual players. Would be the first of it's kind to my knowledge. One major upside would be that the games would all be dramatically different from one another, as opposed to the current "alright we know exactly what the enemy's vehicle loadout is" style.

Off topic yes, but I just wanted to give opinions on this idea thats being talked about in this thread.

Maybe things would be helped once 128 is fully integrated into the mod, giving us a good reason to decrease the armour numbers in 64 and also to decrease the avaliable HAT and TOW to balance it out as well as having a HP boost etc so that armour is a much more feared, but rarer commodity

Arnoldio wrote:I would send an offensive remark your way, but for the sake of me not being banned, ill hold it back.

That is the whole point of this discussion. Players as infantry NEED to be afraid of the tanks and tanks NEED NOT to be afraid of infantry. Now its the other way around.

Use teamwork to palce TOWs and HATs strategicaly. Tactics, withrdawal, teamwork is what its needed, not handing you OP HATs ant any given second. I believe youre one of those player who constantly attack and dont give a damn about defending/pulling back.

I think you off all people should know best what happens when a Tank goes solo on infantry that has any AT capabilities whatsoever (1991 rings a bell?)

Tank is supposed to fear infantry. A tank that is being supported by infantry is supposed to be fearless and same applies for infantry supported by a tank. If you are an infantryman with no AT support then you are supposed to **** your pants (which is what players actually do in that situation).

This isnt a issue of tank commanders not supporting infantry. This is a issue of players lack of willingness to cooperate properly. Infantry expects the tank to do their job without moving a muscle. Sorry but thats not how its supposed to go and pulling this "tanks dont want to teamwork" card aint gonna work as a proper excuse.

mat552 wrote:It is rare for a tank to shrug off a frontal AT shot with anything less than being tracked or turreted. A tracked or turreted tank that was just hit by a HAT is going to be hit by a second hat or catch fire and burn long before repairs can arrive. It is impossible for a tank, much less an IFV, to survive a rear angle hit by a HAT, and side hits do far more killing than wounding.

Not at all. Abrams never get tracked and never lost my turret in one either (this from HAT'ing Abrams and getting HAT'd in one easily over a hundred times in total), and while playing Marlin the other day (the one I posted the bug report from actually) I took 5 (yes, five) HATs on my T72 in total, going for repairs after each one without getting tracked and only losing the turret to one of them. Once had a similar occasion in Dragon Fly using the T62 where we took a HAT to the front, went for repairs, came back, took another, went for repairs again, came back, took yet another and were going back for repairs once more but got taken out by a LAT camping our way into main. Also two times already in Vadso I HAT'd T90s in the rear armor and they managed to go back to main - and I'm not making all this up to prove my point, believe it or not.

I am opposed to removing the vehicle ticket penalty.

I thought thanks were meant to be the frontline force across the board more times than not in assaulting operations. However in cities and such they require infantry.

they should definitely keep it, in real life tanks, helis, etc are valuable... if you take away their ticket cost , then it doesnt really matter that much ( other than the reduced deaths on your side)

CroCop wrote:I think you off all people should know best what happens when a Tank goes solo on infantry that has any AT capabilities whatsoever (1991 rings a bell?)

Tank is supposed to fear infantry. A tank that is being supported by infantry is supposed to be fearless and same applies for infantry supported by a tank. If you are an infantryman with no AT support then you are supposed to **** your pants (which is what players actually do in that situation).

This isnt a issue of tank commanders not supporting infantry. This is a issue of players lack of willingness to cooperate properly. Infantry expects the tank to do their job without moving a muscle. Sorry but thats not how its supposed to go and pulling this "tanks dont want to teamwork" card aint gonna work as a proper excuse.

That situation in '91 does not reflect what goes on in PR.

It is a bit of infantry problem aswell, i wont deny. Lets say a there is 2 squads of 12 and 2 tanks assaulting a position, coordinating etc. Enemies dug in a village with all assets, TOW and HAT. *** soon as the tanks apper, they are tracked/destroyed before those things can even shoot. Infantry is then left out in the open, getting shot with no cover. Hence the reduction of AT is required and hp upped as stated 8674825 times.

Tanks on their own, indeed should be afraid of infatry, but not other tanks. With infantry support, they are eligible to take on enemy infantry and count *** momentum bosster and support.

I like calling tanks and moving around with them supporting them, but i know its pointless because sooner or later, someone with a HAT will come round, life or death he doesnt care, he will choot down the thing. Its like long distance suicide.

Arnoldio wrote:sooner or later, someone with a HAT will come round, life or death he doesnt care, he will choot down the thing. Its like long distance suicide.

That is the problem with being in Armour, one single infantry guy can and will take you out and your only chance is that he makes a mistake and exposes himself.

I cannot count the number of times I have responded to infantry in the time of need only to instantly be destroyed before we could have any impact on the battle what so ever. A key part of being in any asset in PR is know when and how to strike, and it's nearly impossible for an infantry squad to surely be rid of all AT/AA threats.

What happened was everyone has learned how to AT snipe tanks/apcs (and choppers for u lazy pilots who love to hover for us), and take down choppers with little/no AA warning forcing any sensible experienced crew to strike on their own terms.

Ignoring the infantry squads problems until they can handle their own is the norm. I do agree it is unfortunate, but in real battle would you not first establish your firepower superiority across the board before throwing your infantry into the fray?

The buffing of tanks and the removal of tickets combined could turn very ugly.

I think you are exaggerating there a bit. Rarely have I seen a team come back from losing its assets, mostly because the loss of assets by itself results in a ticket loss. But they werent able to make many gains either. HAT is a threat, especially when attacking a defending enemy with access to a crate, but there is also a good chance, that some other squad took the hat, that they are not avaiable to the enemy team etc. .

How many times did it happen to you, that a tank was coming and not hat was avaiable? Can happen to the enemy too.

Still, tanks are limited, they have a long spawn time, taking out armor shouldnt mean you knock off tickets as well, else you can just win by taking out armor.

Also it would help if Infantery and Armor comunicate more. That works very well if the tank is part of an infantery squad, something that will be more appealing on PR Arma2 or PR BF2 once, the higher player cap has been made default. But it would be nice if the same degree of comunication would happen if the tank is not part of a squad. The tools are in place.

Cassius wrote:I think you are exaggerating there a bit. Rarely have I seen a team come back from losing its assets, mostly because the loss of assets by itself results in a ticket loss. But they werent able to make many gains either.

Try playing rounds where the teams arent stacked.
Incompetent teams are a whole different story. A capable crew will murder all kinds of shit. However I do see one annoying problem. Enemy AT doesnt cost tickets.

Should the FOB emplacements actually require you to invest tickets (say TOW/AA at 5-10 tickets) then maybe the somewhat less skillful players would actually focus on getting rid of the AT first.

CroCop wrote:Should the FOB emplacements actually require you to invest tickets (say TOW/AA at 5-10 tickets) then maybe the somewhat less skillful players would actually focus on getting rid of the AT first.

This is actually a really good idea, if possible. There are a lot of problems in the realm of Armor vs. AT. I personally have a big problem with thermals. The infantry can request armor support all they want, but as soon as there is a tow emplacement up and manned and his squad is covering him in smoke grenades. I am not going to risk my armor / tickets just to take a loss while trying to get the guy on the tow / the tow itself. No infantry can accurately hit him but he can snipe to his hearts content. And this is a problem because the ticket balance between them is terrible. Tow dies - 1 ticket, He kills 1 tank in the process - 10-13 tickets (situational of course). Then his squad can just rebuild rather quickly and hes up and running again after he respawns. Now if I refuse to confront the situation the infantry will be systematically ruined by a tow sniper hiding in smoke.

I have several ideas to "help" deal with the problems.
1) Super special kits only avail in main. (Already suggested I know but its a very good idea.)
2) Change AT behavior / damage versus Armor. IE: Lower HAT / TOW damage versus Armor. Also I would support LATs doing 20 / 30 damage to back, under, and upper turret armor on tanks. After all (as an examble) the US army's AT-4 is an actual AT weapon completely capable of penetrating MBT armor. (And yes I realize it is how it is for balancing reasons.)
3) Remove thermals. Most armor users I know never had issues without thermals prior to their introduction, I generally do not even use them. Non thermals on larger view distance maps have a longer confirmation distance. (I can make out my target easier without them). Only thing I really think needed thermals was the Atk chopper when they hover 800m in the air and can barely see the ground.

Thermals aren't going to be removed.

then the effective view distance on them should be reduced.