Project Reality Forums

Removing the delay on the TOWs would make a big difference imo indeed. Especially the Russian TOW has a rly big delay afaik. If the tank knows about the TOW, they can easily get into visual range of each other, and, even tho the TOW saw him first most of the time, and then have enough time to stop (and stop the shaking), point the gun and fire. You need to be really slow with that if you get hit after the seeking and flight time.

100% agree on removing the seek delay

DogACTUAL wrote:Maybe keep a very short fire delay (like 0.5 seconds). Makes TOWs feel more 'real' and prevents misfires while still being just as effective against pushing tanks.

Agreed, we should implement the same for tanks, 1s delay for AP and HE shells. To prevent misfires.

[R-DEV]AlonTavor wrote:I got one hit by a tow in a full hp Abrams yesterday..... (And on my screen I already rotated the front towards it. Fucking prediction with high ping.)

Terrain damage is a thing to consider, being taken out by 1 shot usually means the driver was a little rough on the way to the frontline. Happens more often than anyone would like to admit, but I'll be damned if I don't manage to smack at least 1 tree on Kashan

Was in a desert map with nothing to bump into, put me on fire.

It is often possible to take out an enemy tank with one shot especially when you have the high ground.

Fuller wrote:It is often possible to take out an enemy tank with one shot especially when you have the high ground.

Since it happens often I'm sure providing some video proof won't be too difficult.

Fuller wrote:It is often possible to take out an enemy tank with one shot especially when you have the high ground.

It depends on the ATGM you're using. With TOW it's easier to 1HK tanks as the diameter of spin is very small, makes it easy to hit the side if its visible at all. With MILAN and HJ-8 you can't aim for a spot, you have to aim for a hit.

Maybe if GB gets starstreak AA emplacements things might look differently lol.

@Devs, What do you think about removing the fire delay? Sounds for me like a good way to balance tow vs tank gameplay without changing armor values.

Can we just add delay on the tank?

Like when you hold click you hear the tank commander yell "fire!" and then the tank shoots, having like a .5s delay from click to shoot.

I like heaving delay on heavy weapons, I have trigger discipline but like 99% of players don't

viirusiiseli wrote:Frontal side is still frontal armour. Side armour shots with ATGMs should make tanks burn.

\

Aimed for rear side of turret on Abrams which is IRL where ammo is. Maybe I remembered hitting tank with Eryx instead, or spin made it hit elsewhere.

However, that damage chart is extremely inaccurate. It only takes 4 medium (RPG-26 and AT4) LAT (implying each do at least 25% damage) to side of MBT to kill(explosion + model changes to destroyed).

Allahu Akbar wrote:Aimed for rear side of turret on Abrams which is IRL where ammo is. Maybe I remembered hitting tank with Eryx instead, or spin made it hit elsewhere.

However, that damage chart is extremely inaccurate. It only takes 4 medium (RPG-26 and AT4) LAT (implying each do at least 25% damage) to side of MBT to kill(explosion + model changes to destroyed).

It's from a previous version, so the LAT damages are off but IIRC the ATGM and HAT damages are quite accurate.

Love how CAS and armour, to an extent, get nerfed to shit levels while all the inf only players are gloating on with a smug grin. But the moment their TOWs get nerfed just a bit they collectively cry out in pain and claim everything is broken. If you wanna see broken how about you try fixed wing CAS.

TOWs are fine right now but you know what? I wouldn't even mind if they one shot any tank from any side or fire delay disappears.

We should make the PR 1.2 Update available through the client with a simple switch function, just so you can experience the true AIDS of your CAS and Armour balance suggestions first hand yourself.

I'm just afraid that you won't be able to play with a whole lot of likeminded people.

Infantry should have tools to deal with any threats, the only hard counter to infantry should be infantry. All assets are currently viewed as King of the Battle, while that should be an infantry only title. APCs, Tanks, CAS, Transport, and Logistical Vehicles should be considered support for the infantry. I don't understand when or how this view got lost in the mix, but it's is vital to consider when balancing assets.

A guy with a rifle is easily killed, but 6-8 guys with rifles and the appropriate load outs should be able to take out any asset in a head on fight. The only reason an infantry squad should wipe to an asset is lack of intel on said enemy asset and lack of proper kits to keep said asset at bay.

We act like being 1 shot by a TOW or HAT is the worst thing to happen to the game when that's how it used to be and we never really belly ached about it. It feels like we, as a community, are becoming a little self-entitled.

6-8 guys with rifles and the appropriate load outs should be able to take out any asset in a head on fight.

LMAO Just need to include those javelin launchers for every squad in the next release then. Perhaps make the HAT kit available as one for each squad? Sure thing buddy, i wonder what the point of MBTs and CAS even is IRL if they are so easily defeated by a few guys on foot with 'the right equipment'.

Murphy wrote:Infantry should have tools to deal with any threats, the only hard counter to infantry should be infantry. All assets are currently viewed as King of the Battle, while that should be an infantry only title. APCs, Tanks, CAS, Transport, and Logistical Vehicles should be considered support for the infantry. I don't understand when or how this view got lost in the mix, but it's is vital to consider when balancing assets.

A guy with a rifle is easily killed, but 6-8 guys with rifles and the appropriate load outs should be able to take out any asset in a head on fight. The only reason an infantry squad should wipe to an asset is lack of intel on said enemy asset and lack of proper kits to keep said asset at bay.

We act like being 1 shot by a TOW or HAT is the worst thing to happen to the game when that's how it used to be and we never really belly ached about it. It feels like we, as a community, are becoming a little self-entitled.

If you want something like that,then just go and play BF4.

Murphy wrote:A guy with a rifle is easily killed, but 6-8 guys with rifles and the appropriate load outs should be able to take out any asset in a head on fight.

as a huge advocate of useful stationary AT i have to say thats not true. infantry should not be able to heads on offensively fight assets.
but thats not even what we are discussing here. infantry should very much be able to defend itself (especially on easily scouted stationary positions).
the ATGM nerf made infantry on asset maps unable to do anything but be flagcapping bodymass playing hide and seek, rather than allowing teamwork with each asset/aspect of the game exceling at certain things while still being able to fill the roles of other assets, when those are lost, to a lesser extent, mainly by adopting a different (defensive) playstyle, rather than being rolled.

no round should be decided by 6 guys alone, with 44 players not being able at all to compansate for that.

no impact on the outcome of a round -> people leave the server

new to the game/constantly no impact on the outcome of a round -> playernumbers shrink

DogACTUAL wrote:LMAO Just need to include those javelin launchers for every squad in the next release then. Perhaps make the HAT kit available as one for each squad? Sure thing buddy, i wonder what the point of MBTs and CAS even is IRL if they are so easily defeated by a few guys on foot with 'the right equipment'.

gameplay over realism + even RL works against your arguments.

javelins are pushed down to the squad level; AT4 penetrates MBTs; ATGM penetrate tank front armour; 30mm penetrates at least the russian tanks; tanks are support assets.

in the current near-peer conflict in eastern ukraine CAS is a nonfactor due to AA threats, with multiple aircraft being shot down by MANPADs at the beginning of the conflict.

Yes good points. I also wish DEVs would find a 'realistic way' to make TOWs more effective against tanks.
But the way you described INF against armour is how it is basically for CAS against AA right now.

DogACTUAL wrote:LMAO Just need to include those javelin launchers for every squad in the next release then. Perhaps make the HAT kit available as one for each squad? Sure thing buddy, i wonder what the point of MBTs and CAS even is IRL if they are so easily defeated by a few guys on foot with 'the right equipment'.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. IED as in "Do-It-Yourself-Tank-Killers" can be made from commonly available chemicals if you know the how-to - just ask the lads in Afghanistan. So it doesn't even have to be "the right equipment", neither does it have to be "a few guys", a single person can do it and all he needs is fertilizer mixed with a few extras, a cellphone and a good spot to deposit it all. Why do you think our(German) Tank combat doctrine calls for Mech Inf to be deployed with our Tanks at all times?