Project Reality Forums

ZephyrDark wrote:As for the suggestion, thats what a wrench is for. Maybe if C4 was replaced with some other material or different style and have C4 be able to clear a group of mines, but not incendiarys.

Yeah as animal said.

An incendiary grenade going of next to or near a tank should do nothing. Maybe since they are thermite iirc, it being directly on top of a tank or other armoured vehicle it might do damage, but all it would do is melt a hole in it at most..

I desagre, a incediary granede may do a bit damage, in worse case put the engine in flame.

what means you cannot move the tank anymore, and depending the tank, even not move the tank turrent, since the engine of the turret is in the back and a engine make the move.

still, thack for you posting, friend.

echo wrote:2 Heavy AT, 4 LAT, 2 TOW. Oh and your own armour which should be covering you or if you have CAS like on Muttrah then use that. Though LAT seems to be effective on that map.

wow finally we got tanks, and no more papper mache shiet.

to a tank be a tank at last it,s frontal armor must be bad ***. what makes a tank a bicth to destroe is that you must destroe it by parts, friest the whels, then the engines, or friest the main gun, then the turrent, so goes on.

that is the diference betwhen a tank and a papper APC.

echo wrote:2 Heavy AT, 4 LAT, 2 TOW. Oh and your own armour which should be covering you or if you have CAS like on Muttrah then use that. Though LAT seems to be effective on that map.

In addition to this, there are mines from combat engineers and sappers (spawnable kits for insurgents therefore no limits to the numbers on the battlefield), arty IED's for Insurgents and Taliban/Militia CE's, and suicide vehicles for all insurgent factions. If you want to get creative, there are also some environmental options available to creative soldiers using the sapper or rifleman AP kits, depending on the map in play. I won't give all my secrets away, but infantry are hardly defenseless against armor.

The point here was not to take anything away from infantry, but to address incendiary grenades as a whole. They were never intended to be a blanket antiarmor weapon for all blufor soldiers to have.

echo wrote:2 Heavy AT, 4 LAT, 2 TOW. Oh and your own armour which should be covering you or if you have CAS like on Muttrah then use that. Though LAT seems to be effective on that map.

Okay, so TOWs are FOB defense for the most part. Just because there's 2 HATs on every map doesn't mean you'll get one for your squad. LATs are effective at destroying jeeps and the likes, and harrassing heavy armour. The reason LATs seem to be effective on Muttrah is that you can shoot down onto vehicles from buildings or use them as cover until a vehicle passes and exposes it's weaker ***. But that's about the only map that I see them somewhat effective on APCs. And how often do you find your armour covering you? I see it on TG where I play quite a bit, but that doesn't count for every server. So what about the poor soul's that are forced to the servers where 2 schmucks jump into a tank on Kashan Desert or Wanda Shan and solo around and not help the infantry? Wanda Shan is one of the few maps where I WILL resort to using incendiaries because armour can't be everywhere at once and even though all the armour on that map has thermals, you can still use the trees and hills to your advantage to get up close enough to any vehicle to use them. And like you said, if you're LUCKY enough to get CAS on a map, it can be effective with the right crew in it.

After reading through your posts darkside12, I am still not convinced. Your primary argument against fixing incendiary grenades seems to be,"Other people I play with don't use teamwork, so every kit I use should have an antiarmor weapon." I know that you did not use those exact words, but when you break down your posts to the simplest possible terms, that is what it boils down to. Is that really what you want the PR experience to be? I know that I don't. Sorry. I spend pretty much all of my PR time on the ground as a grunt. Yes, it sucks fighting armor, but that is working as intended. Armor assets are by no stretch of the imagination unkillable by other means.

Incendiary grenades, aside from the antiarmor aspect, are fine. Changing to a damage over time system like the one I proposed in my first post in this thread would address this issue, however, I do not know how much work that would be to implement, as I am not a dev. Short version for those that do not want to read up to page two, instead of one initial blast for full damage amount, split the total damage into a series of smaller explosions. For example, if the original blast value is 50 points of damage, have the grenade explode ten times in five seconds for five points of damage per explosion.

echo wrote:So its a little hard to kill a tank. Does that not express what this mod was made under and should be based on the principal of being realistic. Because at the moment those incendries are not realistic.

Sure its a game, but for the sake of realism, this should not be an issue and should be a no-no as I doubt a tank or any armoured vehicle has been killed fully by 2 or 3 or even 6 incendry grenades with those grenades not even touching the tank itself. I also doubt that an armoured tank would be able to be damaged to effect the effectiveness by a toss of a grenade behind terrain.

If you really want to increase survivability for infantry, then give them more HAT kits on maps like Wanda Shan. But please, do not give them magical grenades which are the size of gulf balls the ability to kill heavily armoured tanks.

HAT vs Incinedery, lets look at the specifics here:

HAT, it can kill ur armur OVER 9000 meters away (notice joke)

Incinedery, i can throw it like 25 meters away

So HAT's are 100% armor killers, but Inicnederyes are if you let infantry get too close to your armor, and if they do get to your armor then YOU as the armor driver/gunner are doing something wrong here

In real life we can damage armor or sabotage if you sneak up on them (cutting the tracks of a tracked vehicle with a "torch" when they are not looking would disable the vehice, but not possible ingame), it would make sense, or damaging optics lenses(makes sense ?!) with small arms fire which would potentially force armor to pull back for repairs and to not die horribly, but as things are we can't do that ingame sadly, so incinederies > kill armor sounds fine to me actually, and the only time incinederies are a threat to armor is when you let them sneak up on you, so its your own damn fault if you die by them

=)

General Dragosh wrote: So HAT's are 100% armor killers, but Inicnederyes are if you let infantry get too close to your armor, and if they do get to your armor then YOU as the armor driver/gunner are doing something wrong here

The thing about infantry getting too close to armour is kind of null in my opinion. In some maps there are plenty of places to hide, and if you as a tank crew (let's say) are called in by infantry and you ask if its clear in a defined sector. It is now THEY'RE job to find out if it is clear so the armour can advance safely. So if there is enemy infantry that is visible to the infantry calling support, and the armour cannot see them, then who's fault is it for infantry getting to close to the tank?

Also, WHY ARE INFANTRY GOING TOWARDS ARMOUR?! If this was real life, I'd be high tailing it to cover and retreating unless we have the equipment (AT4/M72/RPG-27(or 7) for APC and a H-AT weapon for a tank) to kill it. An Incendiary is not a capable anti-armour weapon in real life. Unless you are able to get on to of the tank/APC/IFV and lay the grenade on top of the vehicle on a critical area, chance are when you throw it, its going to bounce of the vehicle, make a loud noise and reveal you position, thus getting yourself KILLED.

I agree that an incendiary grenade placed on ABANDONED equipment and used to destroy/disable it makes sense, and would love to see it in game (however without multiple damageable areas on vehicles in BF2, this can't really be accurately represented), but the incendiary as a capable Anti-Armour weapon is not realistic or sensible (especially when the grenade is going off 10m+ away from the armour, even right next to it, it shouldn't destroy it.)

My main issue with the current incendiary bugs are that it causes infantry to act unrealistically. Armour is a force meant to be feared on the battlefield. Having every squad capable of defending itself against every threat is outright, for lack of a better word, stupid.

We know that not every server has the coordination as some, but, do we have to tailor the game so that every joe-schmoe is able to play it without using realistic tactics and maneuvers?

Well the Incinedery thing is ushually pointed towards urban warfare, i never saw someone runing out in the open towards to a tank acting like jonh rambo to just throw a incinedery on it,

I myself had some encounters in forests against tanks as a infantrymen, no AT in the next 2 km's, so i use the incinederies to scare that thing away, which is what ushually happens.
Its too bad that we cant have specific damage on specific part but that something we have to deal with.

Now the whole incinedery thing as a whole, they are fine, they are not gamebreaking as one might think, if you're in a tank/apc/ifv sitting somewhere out in the open outdors then you really dont have to fear incinederies, BUT if you ride down the streets with such vehicles chances are you will certanly die, armored vehicles are not ment for urban warfare, of course you can shoot buildings down and alike but its the infantry that takes the job to clear the urban areas not the armor (otherwiese there would only be a job in the military as as crewmember xD).

Conclusion of this silly wall of text

1. Dont drive tanks/apc/ifv's into cities that are not cleared of enemy because there is a high chance of you suddenly spontaneously bursting in flames
2. If you are in the wide open outdors, then you're doing it RIGHT
3. If you die by a incinedery . . . didnt i just tell you not drive into urban areas ?!

=D

SGT.Ice wrote:If a thermite can destroy a blackhawk and is used to destroy weapons and or unsalvageable vehicles. I see no reason why it should not be able to destroy a vehicle. Especially once with gas in it.

Then you will have players exploiting this and throwing them in the road or at vehicles as they approach.

I do think the strength of the incendiary should be rasied, imho I don't think it should take more incendiaries which comes with the kit you have to destroy a cache. Mortars should have no impact on caches - Don't mean to go off topic.

Incendiaries use to open up doors would be cool to see again, or even allowing a grenade when placed next to a door.

If an incendiary is placed on a mine it should blow up - but that's just me.

echo wrote:but for the sake of realism

Yeah, well for the sake of realism I should be able to lob mortar round after mortar round in the BLUFOR main as Taliban or Insurgents because the do it IN REAL LIFE, but I don't. You don't seem to get the point that when you're on a 4km map, HATs may not always be around, your CAS may have just gotten shot down, the TOW could have a tree between it and the tank raping your position. I think you missed the point that I said I will resort to them if I have to. I will use any means necessary to kill my enemies, whether the standard infantry man or in a tank. War is a dirty business, in real life and in PR. I don't have the ability to complain that the Taliban just shot 17 mortars into my base while I was sleeping, or that Lybian troops just put 8 23MM rounds through one of my MV-22 Ospreys and now I have to stay up all night and fix it. The only thing I'm being completely and udderly pissed off about is that infantry are yet again getting shitted on by having a fall back option to protecting themselves against armour being taken away and not having some sort of "kiss and make up" given to them. I think General Dragosh sums it up perfectly in these 2 sentences.

General Dragosh wrote:Incinedery, i can throw it like 25 meters away

So HAT's are 100% armor killers, but incendiaries are if you let infantry get too close to your armor, and if they do get to your armor then YOU as the armor driver/gunner are doing something wrong here

Get rid of incendiarys jacking up armor and pass out more LATs. Gets rid of a bug and gives infantry a means to damage armor. I would say at least 2 LATs per squad would suffice and this keeps things closer to teh realisms.

Ninjam3rc wrote:Get rid of incendiarys jacking up armor and pass out more LATs. Gets rid of a bug and gives infantry a means to damage armor. I would say at least 2 LATs per squad would suffice and this keeps things closer to teh realisms.

I can live with that cause 2 LATs in a squad wouldn't kill heavy or medium armor, but it would damage them enough to make them have to leave and go repair.

darkside12 wrote:The only thing I'm being completely and udderly pissed off about is that infantry are yet again getting shitted on by having a fall back option to protecting themselves against armour being taken away and not having some sort of "kiss and make up" given to them.

The point is not to shit on anyone. Currently, armor crews are the ones being shit on. Right now, as it stands, every Blufor/AAS kit with the exception of Sniper is an antiarmor kit. That is not balanced in any way, shape, or form. This needs to be fixed, and no, you do not need any sort of compensation for it being fixed either. Nobody should have to kiss and make up with you for fixing an imbalance that is currently in your favor. Project Reality is a game of checks and balances. Incendiary grenades, in their current form, are not balanced. That is the point of this discussion.

Yes, it sucks as infantry when you get raped by armor. I know, I spend pretty much all of my PR time on the ground, and the vast majority of it as an Insurgent. I have been raped by more armored vehicles than I can count. No I am not exaggerating. I went to public school. It is supposed to suck. That is the point of armor. Next time, don't be so far from your antiarmor support.

Let's not just talk about what incendiaries do to armor, though that is a MAJOR issue. How about how they just burn straight through the tank traps and wire. Could something be done so it takes more than 1 to break through these? If they needed 3 or more to destroy it would make those into something far more useful.

It may not be possible for some of the same reasons, but I'm just throwing that out there.

Slightchance wrote:Let's not just talk about what incendiaries do to armor, though that is a MAJOR issue. How about how they just burn straight through the tank traps and wire. Could something be done so it takes more than 1 to break through these? If they needed 3 or more to destroy it would make those into something far more useful.

It may not be possible for some of the same reasons, but I'm just throwing that out there.

That should be happening next patch hopefully so they are not harder to destroy, but happening less and less. You should make a suggestion about increasing the amount of incendiaries needed though, thats a fairly decent idea.

I kind of agree that mines should be unarmed by incendiary grenades (and C4).

Sure it's unrealistic, but it's not.

Mines are not meant to stop enemies from advancing, just slow them down and then shoot them. The end result would the same. Place the mine in a tight spot / mine-field, and ambush them when they try to remove it or cross the field. Mine with no ambush = fail. Just like irl.

To counter the fact that mines can be removed quick, more mines.