Improve AT again

[viirusiiseli]

You get 1 HAT kit and 2 TOWs and maybe the map allows for good mines, but that's about it for hostile tanks. The rest you mentioned isn't Infantry equipment at all lol.

3 TOW emplacements I believe. Also I don't know if you know, but light AT damages tanks quite well now. And you have an unlimited supply of those.

[Frontliner]

And how many sane Tank players are going to stay in to get slaughtered by LATs? How many times do you have 3 squads with LATs all hitting pretty much at the same time? On the Tank's rear armour?

[Jacksonez__]

Don't think it's at all possible, but it would be awesome if Militia and MEC could get something like a kit with a Malyutka that needs 1 more person near the operator to be deployed.

Do you mean this?





I think no conventional or unconventional group in the world uses that. It is so out-dated, hard to aim or hit. You basically shoot it from the platform, look at the missile with your periscope and aim with joystick

Looks handy, to be honest!

e:

How many times do you have 3 squads with LATs all hitting pretty much at the same time? On the Tank's rear armour?

hey, that was chechen militant tactic against russian armors. Shoot many light anti-tank weapon grenades at the same time in the same place. Eventually it goes through.

[FluffyThumper]

Do you mean this?





I think no conventional or unconventional group in the world uses that. It is so out-dated, hard to aim or hit. You basically shoot it from the platform, look at the missile with your periscope and aim with joystick

Looks handy, to be honest!

Chechen militiants and Syrians use newer, semi automatic variants that don't require you to guide the missile throughout the flight. IMO it'd be a pretty good way of getting rid of tanks without getting as close as you would with an unguided HAT.

[viirusiiseli]

And how many sane Tank players are going to stay in to get slaughtered by LATs? How many times do you have 3 squads with LATs all hitting pretty much at the same time? On the Tank's rear armour?

I posted this video in another thread and I'm gonna keep posting it again. It's not hard. Tank was full health before first shot hit.

Video

[Frontliner]

Good job, you deserve that kill. Don't think all three of you can fetch another LAT upon respawn though so I don't see why you're making such an issue out of this. Not to mention your 3 LATs block the availability of LATs for your team and you can't be everywhere at once. While you're off tank hunting some APCs can go wreck those squads without AT.

[uberlamer]

While you're off tank hunting some APCs can go wreck those squads without AT.

How many times do you have 3 squads(be it 1 squad with 3 lats, same) with LATs all hitting pretty much at the same time? On the Tank's rear armour?

You said it yourself bro.

[Frontliner]

When I said that I hadn't seen the video yet. That ups the count to one. It still doesn't change my opinion on how well the current system works.

[viirusiiseli]

Good job, you deserve that kill. Don't think all three of you can fetch another LAT upon respawn though so I don't see why you're making such an issue out of this. Not to mention your 3 LATs block the availability of LATs for your team and you can't be everywhere at once. While you're off tank hunting some APCs can go wreck those squads without AT.

8 LATs per team with 30 second respawn after the person has either died or requested a different kit. So yes, you can get unlimited LATs. You don't know how the system works but still complain about it and pretend it's bad.

It takes less than 5 min to get 4 LATs into the same squad. While your team still has their LATs too. This is a huge help against tanks, as you can keep hitting them and make them go away, but it's a big drawback for APC vs infantry balance.

TBH I'd rather have the old system with 2 HATs but like 5 LATs per team with 5-10min respawns for them, now that HAT has launch delay and isn't OP.

[Frontliner]

8 LATs per team with 30 second respawn after the person has either died or requested a different kit. So yes, you can get unlimited LATs. You don't know how the system works but still complain about it and pretend it's bad.

Where am I complaining exactly? Where do I say it's bad?

It still doesn't change my opinion on how well the current system works.

Oh right, nowhere.

[Murphy]

If we balance the game towards catering to the players/squads that are ill-equipped and in the line of fire of a tank we would also eventually need to balance the tanks/apcs to the same piss-poor quality of playing. In the end if you cater to one side to much you ruin it for the other. It's not a difficult concept to get one's mind around, but we shouldn't nerf everything to the ground because you have had some bad experiences regarding those assets of late. If I were to play devil's advocate I'd just keep saying "there is too much AT on the field for APCs to be anything but fodder", or "Tanks are kings of the battle and meant to be difficult to deal with, every infantry squad should have to co-ordinate the available AT accordingly".

It's not as simple as some of you gentlemen seem to believe it is.

[3ti65]

I originally posted this suggestion after a bad kozelsk round on Militia side.

Goes for all maps featuring Milita. If your HAT guy sucks, you will have a hard round. Unless you have these ingenious 5-LAT-guys squads.

HAT stats are still fine btw, it didnt get nerfed i was mistaken.

But Militia cannot effectively hold off enemy armor any more with just 1 HAT kit. Of course there are ways to optimize the usage of this kit, but realistically on a pub server, its gg for the russian / british tanks.

Also with the chance of a dev answering: Why does the t55 have the best armor against HAT? It's supposed to be the shittiest tank no? And yet it survives an Eryx with only grey smoking.

[Rhino]

Also with the chance of a dev answering: Why does the t55 have the best armor against HAT? It's supposed to be the shittiest tank no? And yet it survives an Eryx with only grey smoking.

PR doesn't have a T-55.

However if your confusing a T-55 for the T-62, which PR dose have and assuming its at full HP, an Eryx to the front will not destroy it no but will be just above critical damage so will only require a little more to kill it. However an Eryx to the Sides, Back or Top, will put it into critical damage (from full HP) giving a few seconds for the crew to escape before it goes boom.

This is in contrast to the MBTs we have ingame (T-62 is classed as a "Medium Tank" ingame), which will take ~1.6 Eryx missiles to the front to kill, or ~1.4 Eryx Missiles to the sides, or just above critical (but not burning, from full HP), from one missile to the rear.

It is also worth keeping in mind that hardly any tank is at full HP w/e it goes into any engagement since its normally taken damage from the terrain getting there etc, let alone any 30mm rounds or LAT it might have had to shrug off too.

[3ti65]

Yeah the T62 i meant. Well something seems off with it. Gonna test it further and make a video if i feel that it's necessary.

Which still leaves the Milita AT's for discussing. Especially the AT guns seem to be useless now on Kozelsk and Dragon Fly, since the Tank that spawns at the beginning can just drive in front the other armored vehicles and clear them without having to worry about any damage what so ever.

[Jacksonez__]

Yeah the T62 i meant. Well something seems off with it. Gonna test it further and make a video if i feel that it's necessary.

Which still leaves the Milita AT's for discussing. Especially the AT guns seem to be useless now on Kozelsk and Dragon Fly, since the Tank that spawns at the beginning can just drive in front the other armored vehicles and clear them without having to worry about any damage what so ever.

Tested T-62 armor earlier. T-62 was stronk.

[viirusiiseli]

since the Tank that spawns at the beginning can just drive in front the other armored vehicles and clear them without having to worry about any damage what so ever.

As an asset-user I can confirm this. It's quite idiotic to have those guns anymore as they serve no purpose against heavy armor. You can drive up to them in a tank with nothing to worry about and just shoot them up.

Though I have seen one separated instance where a crew drove into them and got shot at probably a dozen times and died

[Frontliner]

This is in contrast to the MBTs we have ingame (T-62 is classed as a "Medium Tank" ingame), which will take ~1.6 Eryx missiles to the front to kill, or ~1.4 Eryx Missiles to the sides, or just above critical (but not burning, from full HP), from one missile to the rear.
It is also worth keeping in mind that hardly any tank is at full HP w/e it goes into any engagement since its normally taken damage from the terrain getting there etc, let alone any 30mm rounds or LAT it might have had to shrug off too.

I'm gonna be blunt here: There should be no need for the HAT to rely on anything but himself to finish an MBT from full. No further team effort should ever be necessary to finish a task so specific especially since there is only HAT on the field(and those all have their own sets of weaknesses that an MBT crew can try to exploit). I can understand why a LAT kit can be considered as a damage factor in these equations, but 30mm cannons? Terrain damage? No APC is ever going to try "damage" an MBT with it's autocannon on the off-chance there could be a HAT kit sometime someplace sneak up on that MBT and need some 2-3(or w/e) points of damage in the future for the kill. Any crew would try save that APC or try avoid the engagement from the start. And on the side of the crew, it would be infuriating to escape 2 HP over critical and then you ride into a tree or something and that's enough(or ride into it before and you die because of that). Nice of you to give the Tank a chance, really, but I strongly recommend to not factor things like terrain damage into the kill equation because of the above. Just make it kill for sure(talking about MBT rear armour here) or make it survive guaranteed so that random, unlikely-to-happen 30mm cannon fire or terrain damage shouldn't(given reasonably careful play) be an issue - but give us another HAT then to compensate for the added surviveability.

[Rhino]

We are looking into overhauling our AT damage system in the long run but its going to take time and also there is a good reason why missiles like the Javelin and NLAW etc are built around a top down attack mode, since the frontal armour of many modern tanks is far too much for any sizeable missile to penetrate and as such even something as big as the Javelin can only easily penetrate the thin top armour of a tank.

[Nate.]

I like when the HAT is just not enough to kill the tank, it should make it damage very badly (track it, at best). Then both teams have a strong 'teamwork' incentive to either secure the tank (repair & retreat) or kill it (by all means available).

[K4on]

Tested T-62 armor earlier. T-62 was stronk.

A repo video of 1.3 (there should'nt have changed much):


Eryx vs Tanks:

Modern MBT, here T-72:
front hit 30%hp ~ high chance of getting disabled
side hit 20%hp ~ very high chance of getting disabled
rear hit >10%hp ~ critical damage = dead

T-62:
front hit 15%hp ~ very high chance of being disabled
side/rear (side has same armor material here) >10%hp ~ critical damage = dead

Note: Below 10% hitpoints land vehicles start to get into critical dmg. Means they start to 'bleed' until they blow up.