Project Reality Forums

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.

Wrong game, buddy. Your wet dream of a fancy kit squad is not reality. Infantry fears armor and CAS, not the other way around. Your fantasies have no connection to how the gameplay should be or what reality is. Such fancy kit squads would be something depicting special forces, not grunt troops, as in PR.

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.

I actually don't agree with TOW one-shotting MBT to front, because that would make MBT not much more valuable than APC when dealing with infantry. Especially when compared to IFV with a boatload of guns, such as later-variant BMPs(ATGM + 30mm cannon + possibly 100mm HE or automatic grenade launcher). You can kill APC/IFV with around two LAT hits to side, and it only takes 2 more for a tank to go down.

However, stationary AT weapons can be buffed in other ways(lower warm-up time, second seat to SPG-9 so it can be turned at not-sluggish rate). Or perhaps ATGM can do around 50% to front of MBT, around 90% to side, and 70% to rear(because shots to rear usually hits engine and fueltanks that will generally not blow up the tank, unlike side shot into ammo rack).
Maybe we should take a look at CE instead and make it faster to deploy minefields(by either increasing the number of kits available or half the mine reload/double mine capacity; though that would be a problem because finding landmines is difficult).

Look at tickets, your 6-8 guys is only 16 tickets at most, a tank by itself is worth more. And reality is that, against tanks, maybe 3 guys are actually doing the work(HAT, LAT, and maybe someone to lase tank for CAS).

CAS can be nerfed "to the ground"(just someone else's faulty opinion) because it's generally one/two-man asset that can't be hurt by vast majority of things on the map(either AA or other CAS; often there is no other CAS on the opposing faction because asymemetrical balance); tanks actually have to deal with a lot more threats, such as CAS with or without lase, landmines, LAT to side and rear, HAT, stationary ATGM, driving into ditches and get stuck/flip, terrain damage(still a thing); possibly from all directions.

Imagine driving a T-62 on Syria maps. Go try it, nobody cares if you make a tank squad for T-62 or if you take it when you're in APC squad; it's basically a shit box most of the time because the gun reloads slowly(so you're stuck using the coax) and it has bad armor.

It's also legal to camp outside main for tanks but it's not legal to lock AA on aircraft taking off.

Frontliner wrote: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?

WOW soo smart. You just completely ignored the fact that he was talking about a few guys taking out 'any asset in a head on fight' ergo AT launchers vs front armour. Nobody ever denied that if a tank is driving over an IED he is in serious trouble, or do you see me complaining about 'OP IED'?

Stop strawmaning me all the time front, i feel violated.

DogACTUAL wrote:WOW soo smart. You just completely ignored the fact that he was talking about a few guys taking out 'any asset in a head on fight' ergo AT launchers vs front armour. Nobody ever denied that if a tank is driving over an IED he is in serious trouble, or do you see me complaining about 'OP IED'?

Murphy also said the words "appropriate gear" and that you translated "head-on clash" as "RPGs hitting a tank's frontal armour" is very dubious in my eyes; I understood it as "any regular engagement"(and so did others).
He was never advocating Infantry receiving more and better gear as well, he was just saying that he's expecting the infantry to win most engagements.

Back to what you said in reply to him was something to the effect of "Why do Tanks exist if they can just be countered by a few guys with RPGs?" and my answer to that is that Tanks have to cautious of far less than RPGs IRL and need infantry with them. And you know why? Because just using Tanks is nowhere near as combat effective as the on-paper description of their qualities(as in good armour+high accuracy+potent weaponry+high mobility) would lead you to believe, they are, in fact, very much vulnerable.

I didn't translate it, he literally said 'in a head on fight'. Do you consider IEDs and Mines a head on fight?

Your problem is frontliner you are one of those forum guys that just automatically assumes everyone that is not of his opinion is uneducated, stupid and misinformed (there are actually quite a lof of people like that here).

That's why you seemingly don't even take the time to properly read posts and actually determine what i really wrote and just strawman everything.

Back to what you said in reply to him was something to the effect of "Why do Tanks exist if they can just be countered by a few guys with RPGs?"

More like: Why do they exist if they can be taken out by a few guys In a head on fight.But tanks should be able to be countered by a few RPGs in the side or back, i agree.

And you know why? Because just using Tanks is nowhere near as combat effective as the on-paper description of their qualities(as in good armour+high accuracy+potent weaponry+high mobility) would lead you to believe, they are, in fact, very much vulnerable...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?

WEW LAD u r soo smart, and i totally had no idea about this stuff until you came here and showed me!
Just recite some stuff that anyone with a basic interest in military already knew anyway, wow i totally never heard of ANFO based IEDs ambushing convoys before, oh wow u really taught me, thanks XD

DogACTUAL wrote:I didn't translate it, he literally said 'in a head on fight'. Do you consider IEDs and Mines a head on fight?

"Head on fight" is a figure of speech, it's not supposed to be read literally and thus doesn't mean "shooting RPGs at frontal armour". What Murphy instead meant was something along the lines of the average combat situation. And in most average combat situations manpower, agility and stealth wins over firepower and protection.

DogACTUAL wrote:Your problem is frontliner you are one of those forum guys that just automatically assumes everyone that is not of his opinion is uneducated, stupid and misinformed (there are actually quite a lof of people like that here).

You completely misunderstood what Murphy said about appropriate gear and "head-on fighting" favouring infantry. I'm not malicious when saying "You are misunderstanding what he says", I'm trying to get HIS point across to YOU because YOU still cling to your wrong translation as opposed to accepting that as fact and say "Oh, I misunderstood what he said? My bad."

DogACTUAL wrote:That's why you seemingly don't even take the time to properly read posts and actually determine what i really wrote and just strawman everything.

Back to what you said in reply to him was something to the effect of "Why do Tanks exist if they can just be countered by a few guys with RPGs?"

More like: Why do they exist if they can be taken out by a few guys In a head on fight.But tanks should be able to be countered by a few RPGs in the side or back, i agree.

Look, I'm not misrepresenting your point at all and chalk it up to you reading Murphy a bit too literally which makes your argument not a valid reply to his point. I'm not here to fault anyone for an error, in fact I asked Liam and Googleboy how they'd translate Murphy's words(on the off-chance I was being mistaken myself) and they both understood it the way I put it in the first paragraph. You wanna get mad at me for telling you "Hey Dog, your translation is a little bit off, that's not what Murphy is saying"?

The only one "strawmanning" here is the one who thinks that head-on-fighting has something to do with frontal armour. I mean, we could wait until Murphy comes back and clarifies the point he was trying to get across
OR you start trusting two native speakers and somebody with 20 years of English experience that you made a small, understandable translation error.

DogACTUAL wrote:WEW LAD u r soo smart, and i totally had no idea about this stuff until you came here and showed me!
Just recite some stuff that anyone with a basic interest in military already knew anyway, wow i totally never heard of ANFO based IEDs ambushing convoys before, oh wow u really taught me, thanks XD

I mean, if you don't want to bring in IRL tank behaviour, don't bring IRL in. I'm perfectly fine discussing gameplay balance and playability, and the closer we get to realism while maintaining the aforementioned two, the better. The gameplay discussions become problematic however once someone like you brings IRL into this discussion and asks silly questions like

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.

implying that the answer is obvious to you when in reality you're dead wrong on it.

The good thing for me is that I have my Reibert sitting right here next to me on my desk when someone with a severe case of Dunning-Kruger wants to argue against me. I will henceforth quote directly from "Der Reibert", Teil B, Unterpunkt Das Heer, Ueberschrift Aufgabenbereiche und Truppengattungen, Abschnitt II. Truppengattungen, page 44, 45:

"Zu den gepanzerten Kampftruppen gehoeren Panzertruppe und Panzergrenadiertruppe, die meist zusammenwirken. Sie zeichnen sich durch ihre Kampfweise[...] aus und koennen [zusammen] auch ohne Anlehnung an Nachbarn einen ueberraschenden Stoß in Flanke, Ruecken oder die Tiefe des Feindes fuehren.
Die Panzertruppe kaempft vor allem gegen feindliche Panzerkraefte.[...] Sie werden geschlossen eingesetzt. In unuebersichtlichem Gelaende und bei eingeschraenkter Sicht brauchen sie Unterstuetzung durch Infanterie.[...]
Panzergrenadiere sind jedoch gegen ueberlegene Panzerkraefte auf die Unterstuetzung von Kampfpanzern angewiesen, die sie ihrerseits besonders feindliche Infanterie schuetzen."

Since not everybody here is able to understand this allow me to break it down:
-Tanks fight Tanks primarily
-Tanks are supported by Mech Infantry in most cases, even more, terrain features and sightline limitations may make it necessary to have infantry accompany them
-Their mobility allows them to quickly fall into the flank or back of an opponent, or pierce deeply through the enemy lines.
-Infantry is necessary to keep tanks alive against hostile infantry

Nowhere does it say that tanks are unstoppable, in fact, tanks are encouraged to work closely together with infantry to act as fire support for them and that it is necessary for them to receive shielding from hostile infantry of ANY kind, almost as though they are not nearly as invinceable as you think they are.

Is that enough schooling for a day?

Oke front i giv up u win btw i leik ur mention of dunning kruger its very popular reference for smart ppl now unlike me ofcourse

What else am I supposed to do then? You won't acknowledge the fact that you made a translation error no matter how little it is and you constantly talk back despite you knowing that you're not as knowledgeable on the subject as I am. And while I may be an armchair general, I at least am so honest to myself to read into it and challenge my own perception of the situation before I go ahead and articulate a point of mine. Is it my fault you're incorrect and I can prove it? Are you still not grown up enough to simply state "Yeah, well, seems like I was wrong."?

Frontliner wrote:not as knowledgeable on the subject as I am...

...I at least am so honest to myself to read into it and challenge my own perception of the situation before I go ahead

1. Pot calling the kettle black
2. You have never presented these qualities you claim to have. Your posts are always the same biased load of bull be it a hacker thread or feedback. Remember that time you tried to troll PRTA admins into banning me by shitposting?

Also, you two tl;dr posting doesn't further the discussion cause nobody bothers to read a whole page of text per 1 post.

So what? I found PacD's footage of you convincing enough, and so was the one featuring Inspektura. That there were differences in the bush LODs based on the video I did not know and neither did several others, hence the initial back and forth between you, PacD and Casualty. You proved the accusations wrong and I NEVER again made mention of you hacking, whether it was here, on BASED, on PRTA, or otherwise. If you weren't so much of a prick prior and after the event I wouldn't have any issues apologising to you either. So yeah, I presented the qualities I claimed to have, now stop the thread derailment.

And I talk with whomever I want for as long as I damn please.

Just to clarify

I did not mean I want AT to destroy anything from a single shot to the front armour. No, infact Frontliner is actually picking up what I had put down.

I don't want every asset to crumble away the second it's hard counter is fielded by infantry, I just want an SL with the proper loadouts and the proper logistical support to be a clear threat to any asset. Infantry IRL has the tools to destory ANY VEHICLE, anyone trying to argue this needs to go read a book. Would they be specially trained and difficult to keep well armed? Yes, ofc. A Company sized engagement would ideally be with all the trimmings, 100-200 trained soldiers is nothing to scoff at and even though PR is translating the average grunt experience to a game we need to keep in mind those gruns often receive special training even if they aren't "Spekial Ops".

If we're fielding SNIPERS then we surely have HAT and proper Air support (which IRL would mean the enemy doesn't have an airfield within striking range, likely due to a combined arms assault previously executed). So you have to consider the scope of everything if we're going to touch on it for a moment. We cannot just pick and choose to adhere to reality on this topic but not on that, we need to understand WHY reality would be better in this situation or why we would want to avoid realism and make it more "fun".

How is it fun that any number of inf squads can get shit on time after time because Mani and I know the best camping spots for X, Y, Z flags? How enjoyable is it for the guys on the ground to watch their CAS get rocked by Viirus and then have him proceed to take a dump on anyone who opposes death from above? It really isn't, and if you fail to grasp that you should probably take a back seat in the conversation until you realize why we're even talking about INF/CAS in a "TOW damage" thread (because it skews the balance of the trifecta of death in PR Armour - Inf - CAS).

To ensure this isn't everyone being side tracked I'd like to say I didn't have a problem with 1 shot to the correct spot ending any Armour (Including the good ol' glass shots), it made tank combat more lethal and drove home that the first shot is the most important. I really believe tank warfare should be about landing the first shot, and this extends to TOWs and HATS. That isn't to say I think 1 shotting should be brought back, just that I personally enjoyed them and valued what they brought to a 1v1 duel with FRAG/HEAT/ATGM.

Having ATGM/TOW damage roll a value within the disable % of hit points, albeit very low odds, would force assets to play more conservative and rely on intel instead of just tumble-weeding across the battlefield. This would bring them inline with how I would like to see CAS operate, heavily reliant upon an SL getting eyes on the target and relaying information back to the pilot via marker/comms/laze.

Designing gameplay around the INF squads will ensure that at any given moment the majority of players are exerting the most influence on the outcome of the battle. A good asset crew should play a large part in the individual fights but be largely ineffective at gaining control of flags alone. This is not done because we want it to be harder for A-10s to wreck people, or because a TOW should 1 shot a tank to the front (it shouldn't, and I don't think I ever blatantly said it should...just that it used to and I never had issues racking up kills in a tank/apc).

Am I wrong in assume PR is about the experience of an average grunt? Can we not consider assets as an extension of that philosophy and ask for them to be designed as such?

Just had a quick idea, dunno if anyone has already suggested it. Add the anti-tank guns that exists in certain maps as world assets (The small ones, not the monstrous 105 mm cannons.) This asset could take up the same slot as the TOW as an alternative (Right click). It would be able to deal massive damage to front armor of tanks but the slow turn speed would make them vulnerable to flanking maneuvers.

Murphy wrote:Just to clarify

Well see now you're making more sense by explaining better, your previous post was a bit fuzzy.

The problem currently with that trifecta you mentioned is that infantry does not fear the other 2 at all, which is the cause of the skewed balance. With a decent infantry, armor/cas kills would be cut in half easily because all the easy kills they feast on now would be removed.

That would force armor to think more and go out of their way to get kills (be more vulnerable). I liked 0.98 and previous versions for that because you couldn't sit in the same spot for an hour and farm easy kills as opposed to current versions. In order to be effective then, you had to risk losing the vehicle.

Some pretty drastic changes are needed if that issue with balance is to be fixed, because clearly infantry players aren't learning from dying over and over anymore. Those changes will have to be either training the new players, or some more profound changes from DEVs than Mats391 nerfing cannon deviations or adding drop to guns thinking it will change anything as far as the big picture goes. CROWs .50cal deviation was made terrible compared to the old, yet a moderately good crew on Kokan easily gets 50+ because there is no effort on taking cover OR destroying the vehicle.

Maybe reducing the number of assets across the board from maps that have a lot of them could be the solution. It would make the game more infantry based and improve balance. For example max number of CAS assets in any map per team should be 2 in my opinion. No exceptions. Maps such as Khamisiyah, Black Gold, Marlin, Silent and Muttrah could use less APCs and tanks. They should have them, just not in such high numbers.

With less assets, good players would land in infantry squads too instead of just CAS, TANK, and APC like currently. Many maps have so much assets that it's impossible to not get at least something, which is not really that good.

I'll be cynical for a moment and say that even if a 4k asset map (Khami, Kashan, etc etc) had one tank per side it'd still come down to which tank kills the other one first and then owns the battlefield for 20 minutes. Difference would be that it'd be easier for 50 people to LAT/HAT/TOW one tank than two or three, or at least it ought to be.

You could also play by having Intel on the tank being in one area, and pushing in another. Currently 3 tanks on khami can basically cover the entire main stable area or react to it quickly without leaving many gaps, less couldn't.

One of the biggest things for me is there should never be multiple tanks at round start, because in the current meta a tank rush at start is super powerful on most maps. Having 1 tank no respawn at start, then 2 or 3 delayed spawn tanks on most big maps I think would be a better option.

chrisweb89 wrote:You could also play by having Intel on the tank being in one area, and pushing in another. Currently 3 tanks on khami can basically cover the entire main stable area or react to it quickly without leaving many gaps, less couldn't.

One of the biggest things for me is there should never be multiple tanks at round start, because in the current meta a tank rush at start is super powerful on most maps. Having 1 tank no respawn at start, then 2 or 3 delayed spawn tanks on most big maps I think would be a better option.

I agree on that. APC rush can be stopped easier by inf, but most of the time 3 tanks are the only way to stop 3 tanks from rushing. And if they don't...

Jack_Howitzer wrote:I agree on that. APC rush can be stopped easier by inf, but most of the time 3 tanks are the only way to stop 3 tanks from rushing. And if they don't...

That there is specifically why we're in the process of spawn delaying all tanks on all maps.

chrisweb89 wrote: Having 1 tank no respawn at start, then 2 or 3 delayed spawn tanks on most big maps I think would be a better option.

Nah, having a norespawn tank just means tryhards try to keep it alive to maximize tank numbers, was case on Bijar with 4th Merkava.

Problem how? It's a reward to the guys who win the initial fight, but not such an advantage that it decides the fate of the game. The 4th merkava was out of place and has nothing to do with things as it wasn't even balanced from the start.

Looking at kashan std quickly in its current form. Have 1 tank on each team that spawn at start, but don't respawn. This is followed up with 2-3 delayed spawn tanks at the same mark as cas. There still is the problem of tanks rushing and beating trucks and slow choppers to bunkers, but atleast now that 1 tank can only be on one area of the map, and can be more easily flanked.

The best alternative which to my knowledge is impossible would be delaying tanks by 5 minutes on a rollout, but keeping their 20 min respawn. Could be something as stupid as putting their spawn inside a maze, but if someone hacked PR and found a way to delay spawn assets a set time, but keep their respawn time a desperate value, it would make map balancing a lot easier.

chrisweb89 wrote:The best alternative which to my knowledge is impossible would be delaying tanks by 5 minutes on a rollout, but keeping their 20 min respawn.

That's exactly what they're doing and as far as I know its possible, and only a matter of time until implemented.