Some general thoughts (on armor!)

[Tim270]

On the point of deflection...isnt this a vBF2 feature? I am pretty sure deflection is present (IIRC on the front sides of the skirts)

Kind of. It is however, entirely possible through anglemod afaik.

One shudders to think of the workload in creating a table for all these values and fixing up all the hitboxes to get rid of the shot traps that anglemod can cause. Not only that, a lot of this information is not even fully public (armour values of of some western tanks) other than estimates. Anglemod would be quite interesting for IFV's etc but it is quite a workload to do.

Also, personally I would like to see more sourcing on these claims of penetration tables etc. The 'argument' of I live in x so my country must have the best tank become tiresome too. The majority of tank vs tank comparisons are just silly (in rl).

[chrisweb89]

I think what he means by ATGMs are too powerful is the fact that alot of the time, they one shot the other team's tank. For example I was on Quinling, sitting around capping a flag in my chinesse tank and because we were't paying enough attention a challenger was able to roll up on our stationary position and get a hit on us. Instead of pulling back or trying to run, my gunner and I just scanned found the tank, shot it with ATGM and our problem near instantly died(caught on fire and burned), this was begining of the round so the enemy tank had not been engaged and we hit it front armour with the ATGM. That is my only issueing with tanks, it has nothing to do with which country I'm from, or even the RL stats, just the game stats and my experience.

[DutchMasterr]

whats wrong with the AAVs arming?

we do actually have a MK19 and a M2 like it has in RL.

lol just kinda trolling

i always wanted to see mk19s on armored troop trucks or as a deployed heavy weapon like in real life.

[FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON]

I think what he means by ATGMs are too powerful is the fact that alot of the time, they one shot the other team's tank. For example I was on Quinling, sitting around capping a flag in my chinesse tank and because we were't paying enough attention a challenger was able to roll up on our stationary position and get a hit on us. Instead of pulling back or trying to run, my gunner and I just scanned found the tank, shot it with ATGM and our problem near instantly died(caught on fire and burned), this was begining of the round so the enemy tank had not been engaged and we hit it front armour with the ATGM. That is my only issueing with tanks, it has nothing to do with which country I'm from, or even the RL stats, just the game stats and my experience.

yeah the chally must have hit a bump, it will be able to withstand a frontal/side atgm unless you hit a hill wrong and take the slightest amount of terrain damage.

ATGM tanks vs non atgm tank fights are a little skewed, as you can kill with 1 atgm+ 1 round to the front armor while the other tank needs 3 AP shells. you can shoot a tow and get ap shells up much faster than the other tank can get 3 rounds out.

[Tit4Tat]

hit points are weird, from my experince chally seems to be the most armored..i faced 2 t72's on burning, i took 4 hits(survived) whilst hitting them both with 2 AP rounds destryoing them(some time 1 AP can kill t72). Than the other day took a HAT to front armour boom dead i thought wtf-how? than i rememberd whislt i was driving through the city i managed to hit every wreck on the road lol and took a small amount off damage hence why 1 HAT killed me.

The way it is now its unbalanced for tanks on certain maps, even though i tottaly agree that if the crew is compitent they can outwit any tank even in a t72 or t55 vs chally, but in PR its who gets the shot of first 80% will win the fight.

solution- well there really isnt a quick and simple one, e.g burning sands- limit 4 chally's at any 1 point(depends on the map). Give certain tanks more armour(tanks with ATGM should stay the same) but have the most armoured- challengers 2 and Abrams in game.

If you limit the amount of certain tanks on certain maps than hopefully the crew will take more care of them not rushing head strong into confrontation, using coms with AAV and INF more to watch out for enemy threat.

p.s i thought about increasing spawn time but i think it will be a bad idead.


*NwA*_Smurf_1st

[Brainlaag]

The main problem with tanks battles are the really really strange damage values for certain parts with different materials. For example the Abrams M1A1, T-72 and Challenger 2 can all be killed with a single AP-shell, the T-90 has spots were it can be destroyed with 2 AP-shells, while the Leopard 2 has none of these weak spots.

However, as some have already pointed out, the damage you can take from just hitting a bump/static object can sometimes be ridiculously high, making you a easy prey even for HATs.

Also, the ATGMs might be powerful but they tend to get stuck in EVERY single branch, bush, etc. The hit texture of that missiles is so off, it almost hurts. On Yamalia, for example, is the Leopard 2 superior to any T-90 crew using ATGMs, unless the fight out in the open and flat areas.

[Hunt3r]

I'd just like to see some basic semblance of realism, that would be nice. Stuff like having the tanks not take as much damage from terrain, stuff like mantlet hits not penetrating.

[splatters]

Deflection, deflection, deflection... It's already in the engine and to some extent in PR. You can get killed by a ricocheting bullet, bounce grenade launcher projectiles off of surfaces etc.

Even a crude implemention of this sort to heavier projectiles and armor materials would make a huge impact on realism and as someone stated before, it has been already done in FH2. Surely the mighty DEVs of PR could handle that as well.

[kenan(BIH)_1]

Hi guys...i am playing PR since...hm, few years from now, and, I like to call it "BF for adults"...As i see PR, it's matter of teamwork and strategy (tactics). When it comes to armor, even thus I have no interest in operating tanks or apc, and i have no clue about programming, but one of the key elements in armor usage in battle is fuel. That can give advantage for opponent team if commander "forget" to plan refueling, means week logistic support. On the other hand, it's nice touch in realism. I really have no clue is it possible to make it in PR, tanks and apc, who beside ammo and repairs, need fuel.

[SuperHornet]

I'd just like to see some basic semblance of realism, that would be nice. Stuff like having the tanks not take as much damage from terrain, stuff like mantlet hits not penetrating.

Tank's not taking as much terrain damage? LOL. Buddy, if you get mad about tank's taking terrain damage in PR then your going to be pissed about real life.

A friend of mine in the Nevada ANG took a ride in a Abrams simulator and broke the tank going 30 mph over a hill. Tank's in real life aren't driven like they are in PR. Most people gun the throttle and go flying over bumps and hills. You can expect to take some damage from that. Just drive more carefully.

[pr|Zer0]

during my service, I was trained as a driver, apart from my main job as gunner... drove and managed to jam the T80's gearbox while turning around in the mud, plus the vehicle settled on the belly on the mud and was like a sitting duck. Driving an armored vehicle is a very complex task, and most annoying is the "suppression of your senses" - you cannot use your eyes and hearing naturally while inside.. u have to rely on instruments. Here in PR while driving, you press F and you can see almost anything...in real life you dont have that. Plus, no game cannot simulate the presence of propellant gases that occurs after firing which makes your eyes burning. Enough with around the topic thingy
First time when i drove a tank in PR I felt....free. trust me..its a tankers dream to be able to drive like in PR.
Only thing I would really want to see fixed is the wreck animation on GB vehicles, especially damaged/dead C2 and apc's. That darn vehicle "hopping" killed 1 complete tank crew while taking cover in the smoke while repairing. Never drove a C2 ever since.

[ShockUnitBlack]

Weapon stabilization is another huge issue - armoured vehicles would be significantly more effective if it was included in the game.

The main issue, however, is the fact infantry AT weapons are way too powerful at the moment.

[Murphy]

I probably mentioned it in this thread but I believe this to be one of the bigger flaws in PR.

A man is given a $10000+ piece of weaponry, and he decides to run off all alone across open ground teaming with enemy forces with very little regard to his own safety. This is not only common, but basically the way guys with HAT kits operate in this game. This HAT guy gives zero shits about his equipment, his team, his squad, he only cares about getting a shot on the piece of Armour.

This is not only unrealistic but extremely arcadey which goes against everything PR strives to be. I would like to see something done to force a HAT guy to stay near his squad/team to be able to fire the weapon, because as it is 1 infantry guy > any piece of Armour in the game (and choppers too more often then we'd like to admit).

[Tarranauha200]

UGL nades can bounce off from ground, hit somewhere else and exblode. Maybe similar system could be used?

[40mmrain]

I probably mentioned it in this thread but I believe this to be one of the bigger flaws in PR.

A man is given a $10000+ piece of weaponry, and he decides to run off all alone across open ground teaming with enemy forces with very little regard to his own safety. This is not only common, but basically the way guys with HAT kits operate in this game. This HAT guy gives zero shits about his equipment, his team, his squad, he only cares about getting a shot on the piece of Armour.

This is not only unrealistic but extremely arcadey which goes against everything PR strives to be. I would like to see something done to force a HAT guy to stay near his squad/team to be able to fire the weapon, because as it is 1 infantry guy > any piece of Armour in the game (and choppers too more often then we'd like to admit).

limiting players too much makes the game bad.

[Murphy]

It cannot be much worse then the way things go with AT now, anyone who has ever manned any Armour knows exactly what I'm speaking of (I know you have had it happen to you as well). Limit HAT kits so they are forced to act in a somewhat realistic fashion, nothing more nothing less. Not sure how it can be done as players are hardcoded, but brainstorming is the start.

[40mmrain]

For starters, change the necessary amount of guys in a squad to request a HAT from 2 to 4. I have some other ideas, I guess, but let's not go overboard here.

[Hunt3r]

Tank's not taking as much terrain damage? LOL. Buddy, if you get mad about tank's taking terrain damage in PR then your going to be pissed about real life.

A friend of mine in the Nevada ANG took a ride in a Abrams simulator and broke the tank going 30 mph over a hill. Tank's in real life aren't driven like they are in PR. Most people gun the throttle and go flying over bumps and hills. You can expect to take some damage from that. Just drive more carefully.

Sure, but IRL you can certainly go at 50% throttle. In PR it's all or nothing, and don't even try to say otherwise because even letting go of the throttle once will drop off 3/4ths of your speed within half a second.

[Bringerof_D]

i do believe bounces and ricochets do exist. in fact if i recall has been a basic part of vBF2. as for FCS and all that, well i do believe better turret stabilization can be done on the bf2 engine, however the code for it does not mesh with PR's. Try youtube searching for it, i recall it being tested in PR:CA

[Murphy]

For starters, change the necessary amount of guys in a squad to request a HAT from 2 to 4. I have some other ideas, I guess, but let's not go overboard here.

Well right there is a very good start to making HAT guys slightly less common, and one would assume with 4+ guys in a squad the SL would do his best to keep the group cohesive.

I think overboard is, again, one soldier (in which his country has invested at least $1million), and a very pricey piece of equipment (dependent but I would estimate $10k+) sent out all alone with no backup on what is essentially a suicide mission to take out X or Y piece of Armour. He will then exploit a common tactic of hiding behind a piece of terrain, which in real war would be pulverized in no time, and then play jack in the box until he gets his shot off.

There are just too many over the top situations that all culminate in an extremely arcade game approach to HAT kits.