Project Reality Forums

Posted: **2007-08-22 17:14**

Wolfe wrote: Tanks are not the masters of the universe, but they are masters of long-range, wide-open spaces.

pftt...who do these TF21 guys think they are...oh wait! Da Choppa is the range master... Rico-Guided-Rockets ftw

.

Anyways yeah...I've heard running in front of a wolfe is bad news in-game and RL, guys act like this is vanilla and that this is a game and I should be able to run willy-nilly all over the place. Best way to kill a tank is with a tank of your own. You do this by spotting all the armor and your INF keeping their heads down. As long as the fighting is still in East/West city I have no problems with this map....sure it gets nasty at times but hey if you tank was lost due to poor coordination/teamwork then they should have an advantage.

I like that the fighting gets extreme sometimes due to armor. Reminds me of some of those CoD moments when a tank is just slaughtering an area. TBH, when the fighting is in the city...I dont notice tanks very much, they seem to be dinking around outside and having the armor battle. It does seem like a lot of INF are running around out there with them inside of slinking around the city though.

with current map, I'd say 1 -tank and 2 apc's though.

Posted: **2007-08-22 17:23**

ReaperMAC wrote:Another compromise would be like what R-PUB]Hfett was suggesting, similar to Kashan, where the 32 version of the map would only have APCs while the 64 has tanks and APCs.

Seconded.

Posted: **2007-08-22 17:40**

So the answer to defeating tanks is to remove them from the game?

Tanks are not the super power people make them out to be. They have serious weaknesses that few people exploit. If I ran towards a sniper in the open with a knife, I'd think snipers were overpowered too. There's a correlation in there somewhere...

Posted: **2007-08-22 18:11**

Wolfe wrote:So the answer to defeating tanks is to remove them from the game?

Tanks are not the super power people make them out to be. They have serious weaknesses that few people exploit. If I ran towards a sniper in the open with a knife, I'd think snipers were overpowered too. There's a correlation in there somewhere...

Gotcha! It's like Paper - Scissors - Stone!

Sniper > Knife
Tank > Sniper

Which means Knife > Tank...? Ey up?

I think the map suffers because the tanks - and the APCs - can dominate the two 'central ground' flags so easily. East and West City are the two cornerstones of being able to dominate the map, and currently what usually happens is one side send their armor west, the other go east, and then you get a stalemate where each side rushes to the other half of the city and get mowed down by each others tanks and APCs.

If armour was limited in their ability to overlook the city, there'd be far more emphasis on the better urban-fighting side winning as opposed to the best crewed tank dominating the battlefield.

So, if tanks could be:

Allowed into the city's streets
Allowed onto the hills and wastelands surrounding the city
Prevented from firing/overlooking the city from the wastelands in a near-invulnerable position

then I think it'd be much more playable, with less deadlock:

The armored units could battle it out outside the city to dominate the outer edges of the map.
The infantry (mechanised or or foot) would fight inside the city for control of the key CPs.
Good use of armor would be needed to prevent the enemy from pushing you back from the city towards your own base, if they sucessfully captured both East and West City
Good use of armor would be needed to push your side forward once you'd captured the city on foot
Tanks would be able to dominate the city from inside its wall, however they'd be under immediate threat of mines, C4 and HAT kits.
If ticket bleed only started once the "outer" city CP - Ruins and Gardens- or even the Gas Stations were captured, so that tanks could provide support for their team in capturing and defending these last vital posts, then retention of your armor and supression of the enemy's would become pretty vital.

Simply lowering the terrain overlooking the town slightly, altering the profile of the hills a little and adding more some city walls (but passable by infantry- city gates etc) in places so that tanks couldn't get to the areas from which they currently sit and dominate the map would allow the map to retain the armor element whilst forcing it to be put to use in a slightly different way; actually forcing opposing each side's armored units to seek out and engage each other so that the advance BEYOND the town would only be possible if your own armor was still up.

Posted: **2007-08-22 18:26**

Exactamundo.

Tanks are not overpowered, the maps are underpowered. But still, people don't do themselves any favors by running around in the open.

Posted: **2007-08-22 18:40**

If it aint broke dont fix it. The only bad part of this map is poor cover for each HQ

Posted: **2007-08-22 18:48**

and by that time, tanks are the least of your concerns.

Posted: **2007-08-22 18:49**

'[R-PUB wrote:Masaq;465624']Gotcha! It's like Paper - Scissors - Stone!

Sniper > Knife
Tank > Sniper

Which means Knife > Tank...? Ey up?

I think the map suffers because the tanks - and the APCs - can dominate the two 'central ground' flags so easily. East and West City are the two cornerstones of being able to dominate the map, and currently what usually happens is one side send their armor west, the other go east, and then you get a stalemate where each side rushes to the other half of the city and get mowed down by each others tanks and APCs.

If armour was limited in their ability to overlook the city, there'd be far more emphasis on the better urban-fighting side winning as opposed to the best crewed tank dominating the battlefield.

So, if tanks could be:

Allowed into the city's streets

Allowed onto the hills and wastelands surrounding the city

Prevented from firing/overlooking the city from the wastelands in a near-invulnerable position
then I think it'd be much more playable, with less deadlock:

The armored units could battle it out outside the city to dominate the outer edges of the map.

The infantry (mechanised or or foot) would fight inside the city for control of the key CPs.

Good use of armor would be needed to prevent the enemy from pushing you back from the city towards your own base, if they sucessfully captured both East and West City

Good use of armor would be needed to push your side forward once you'd captured the city on foot

Tanks would be able to dominate the city from inside its wall, however they'd be under immediate threat of mines, C4 and HAT kits.

If ticket bleed only started once the "outer" city CP - Ruins and Gardens- or even the Gas Stations were captured, so that tanks could provide support for their team in capturing and defending these last vital posts, then retention of your armor and supression of the enemy's would become pretty vital.
Simply lowering the terrain overlooking the town slightly, altering the profile of the hills a little and adding more some city walls (but passable by infantry- city gates etc) in places so that tanks couldn't get to the areas from which they currently sit and dominate the map would allow the map to retain the armor element whilst forcing it to be put to use in a slightly different way; actually forcing opposing each side's armored units to seek out and engage each other so that the advance BEYOND the town would only be possible if your own armor was still up.

I'd be careful what kind of added city landscaping you would add to keep the tanks from over looking the city. That seems highly gamey and unrealistic to me. How many cities do you know of that have a wall around it to keep tanker eyes from prying?

When you add military hardware to civilian landscape, the military hardware has its way with things.

Now if the city were a military base of some sort that would be a different story. Throw in some walls ala Basrah and there you go. But if Ejod wants to stay a residential hub, I say leave things the way they are!

Posted: **2007-08-22 19:12**

More Tanks

Posted: **2007-08-22 19:24**

Wolfe wrote:and by that time, tanks are the least of your concerns.

Well the last bases are very hard to defend and teams are reduced to spawn death for the length of 300 tickets which is poor. I think some brims are in order and/or extend the cover on the east and west flanks.

Its not just the end game, having no cover at each HQ encourages tanks to sit 400m away from the HQ, early in the game and take out traffic leaving the bases

Posted: **2007-08-23 02:45**

indigo|blade wrote: You have what, 20 minutes without tanks on the map at the outset of the game?

Its 10 actually or even less

What I dont like about Ejod is that tanks camp on the hills, especially the one thats west of West city. It ruins the game badly.

Main reason, that the map needs expanding and fixing

Posted: **2007-08-23 04:13**

indiana pwns and the temple of MEC

"I HATE TANKS"

Posted: **2007-08-23 04:55**

there really shouldn't be tanks at all. maybe one or two the whole map.

Posted: **2007-08-23 07:19**

indigo|blade wrote:I'd be careful what kind of added city landscaping you would add to keep the tanks from over looking the city. That seems highly gamey and unrealistic to me. How many cities do you know of that have a wall around it to keep tanker eyes from prying?

When you add military hardware to civilian landscape, the military hardware has its way with things.

Which is why I primarily suggested altering the area surrounding the city so tanks can't perch up high and rain death on everybody.

As far IRL cities, the outskirks of London are a good 30-40 miles away from from the City of London. Tankers can't sit outside the city and pour fire onto Westminster Bridge, because most cities are large enough that you can't get up onto a hill and "cover" them from a single spot.

Posted: **2007-08-23 08:00**

[R-PUB]Masaq wrote:Which is why I primarily suggested altering the area surrounding the city so tanks can't perch up high and rain death on everybody.

As far IRL cities, the outskirks of London are a good 30-40 miles away from from the City of London. Tankers can't sit outside the city and pour fire onto Westminster Bridge, because most cities are large enough that you can't get up onto a hill and "cover" them from a single spot.

This in ejod is a little city.
I would be happy if some make big cities for urban combat, but new maps, dont touch ejod as before with al basrah.

Posted: **2007-08-23 09:28**

I absolutly agree! with the OP

Usualy its stats hores enyway in the tanks/apc
this is the only realy thing i hate in the mod Tanks/APC to powerfull dosnet realy matter to me what map we talk about. ! H-AT/L-AT to weak.
Remove zoom would solve alot to or make the 30 sek pause from switching seats etc
if people starts saying the zoom is realistic then make the bloody Anti armor kits eaqual realistic!

Posted: **2007-08-23 10:47**

I like the armor on EJOD...
I think some obstacles here and there would do the job. To prevent the tanks from shooting over the whole map? Maybe very dense placement of buildings around the city so the tanks have problems aiming inside?

Goblin wrote: Usualy its stats hores enyway in the tanks/apc
this is the only realy thing i hate in the mod Tanks/APC to powerfull dosnet realy matter to me what map we talk about. ! H-AT/L-AT to weak.
Remove zoom would solve alot to or make the 30 sek pause from switching seats etc
if people starts saying the zoom is realistic then make the bloody Anti armor kits eaqual realistic!

All assets are as realistic as possible at the current stage.

Have you ever experienced a "live" tank? It`s big, it`s fast, hard to destroy and brings along massive firepower. It`s a killing machine, designed to destroy whatever comes in front of its barrel.

And shooting a tank with whatever anti-tank-weapon is a high risk mission. Always. You better have 2 or more backup plans for evading whenever you shoot at a tank. Because if you don`t destroy it in the 1st attempt you most probably will die.

Posted: **2007-08-23 12:58**

I know mate and yes im a Danish Leutenant some years back though and i have driven German Leopard 2 Tanks at excecises and seen them in use, and use ther canons mate i know what i talk about. i also know that there are modern Anti tank weapon that can take out Tanks preaty easyly, i dont care iff they reduce the amount off them ingame but curently its not realistic, and year i know its a hard mission to get a tank ingame and in real life but the anti tank kits curently are used for sniping out off choppers more then on enemy tanks why because its more or less useless.

Posted: **2007-08-23 13:10**

[R-PUB]Masaq wrote:Which is why I primarily suggested altering the area surrounding the city so tanks can't perch up high and rain death on everybody.

As far IRL cities, the outskirks of London are a good 30-40 miles away from from the City of London. Tankers can't sit outside the city and pour fire onto Westminster Bridge, because most cities are large enough that you can't get up onto a hill and "cover" them from a single spot.

I don't think Ejod's "city" was originally designed to be on the same scale as London, Masaq. However, I live in a major US city myself so I do understand where you're coming from.

My point is that if there are hills over looking a city, tanks would be there to keep overwatch on the town below. That's just smart placement of military assets. To change the terrain now would be purely for gamey reasons, of which I disagree completely.

Besides, active players know how important the areas west and east of the metro are and adjust their gameplay/tactics accordingly; spreading the map out is a good idea, IMO.

Any time a player(in this case the OP) wants to change the face of a map because he/she got killed too many times in a particular fashion is, in my opinion, biased and unintelligent whining.

Posted: **2007-08-23 13:18**

I think the easiest thing to do to balance out the uber armour on EJOD, is to simply remove their mega-zoom.

Tanks can't effectively sit on the hills miles away from flags, sniping infantry with their guns, if they don't have that zoom.

Infantry usually can't get anywhere near a tank, so I'd also vote to increase the number of HAT kits to 3 or 4 per team on that map. Alternatively, keep it at 2 per team but remove the extra long time before it can be requested again.

It seems pretty obvious to me that something has to be done. I was playing the map last night, and the most kills anybody had by the end of the game was 20, except for the tankers, who had literally like 50 - 100 each.

Project Reality Forums

Ejod and armor