Project Reality Forums

anyway, its the MEC, we can have them upgrade their vehicles in any way that is required

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:Agree about the annoying material issues. This is fixable.

The whole "jack-in-the-box" issue can be remedied somewhat if we were to give HEAT rounds a small radius of 2-3m that kills regardless of cover, basically a pseudo simulation of the rounds destructive capability.

So we still might see it in teh future? I thought u guys gave up on the idea.. as it was suggested a while ago.

Also its ok to make trans choppers flying APCs in terms of armor to compensate for noob pilots hindering the whole team, but not ok to allow tanks to take more damage b4 exploding? for example TOWs pwning tanks in 1 shot while IRL it takes more than 1 (Most recent example is the AT-14 Kornet hitting a Merkava Mk.3, no1 injured sauce1sauce2)

I posted the whole tanks are useless thingy based on the last Kashan battle vs NATO. They used all the armor they had and lost because of that while we barely used 2 tanks at a time (Watch the BR).
Each time some1 tried to get anywhere near bunkers u'd get HATed/TOWed.
It turns out that often tanks are a burden to the team instead of an asset even on wide open maps like Kashan and Sands.

Nebsif wrote:Also its ok to make trans choppers flying APCs in terms of armor to compensate for noob pilots hindering the whole team, but not ok to allow tanks to take more damage b4 exploding? for example TOWs pwning tanks in 1 shot while IRL it takes more than 1

On Kashan, I hit an M1A2's frontal armour with the Eryx which only caused it to smoke while all functionality was retained.

Nebsif wrote:for example TOWs pwning tanks in 1 shot while IRL it takes more than 1 (Most recent example is the AT-14 Kornet hitting a Merkava Mk.3, no1 injured sauce1sauce2)

That is 1 case and no sources on that story indicate how useful the tank was after being hit. I would guess, not very. Consider how many Merkava's were heavily damaged (some irreparably) during the 2006 Lebanon War when they were faced with similar threats.

By no stretch of the imagination can you say "it takes more than 1 modern ATGM to destroy a modern tank".

Not a debate we need to go into further tbh. We're looking into several ways to improve tanks, protection and weaponry wise.

Nebsif wrote: It turns out that often tanks are a burden to the team instead of an asset even on wide open maps like Kashan and Sands.

It depends mostly on what map and style of fight you have. (PRT or regular) But I have the same feeling as well on most cases. Same with APCs. But if you change it, you will have infantry players ask for more power since they get powned by armour so much. Its going to be hard to balance it our completely.

spawncaptain wrote:On Kashan, I hit an M1A2's frontal armour with the Eryx which only caused it to smoke while all functionality was retained.

HATs don't one hit tanks, if you hit the regular armor parts (not the optics, or tracks). Nebsif is referring to the TOWs, stationary ATs

[R-DEV]DankE_SPB wrote:The "stock" T-72 you see in game is a placeholder for up to date modification.

That does change things. A T-72 with current generation Kontakt would probably fare close to or at least in the same league as the T-90.

There however is still the case of frontal armour and general crew(!) survivability in the western tanks especially.

Hit from the front all tanks should be able to take quite a few hits, from the HATs especially. The HATs are after all not gaint missiles like the mighty Kornet&TOW, they are just not enough to penetrate the frontal armour of a tank. If they where there would be no need for big missiles like the Kornet&TOW. (And range is a non-argument here because the Kornet&TOW would not be produced with such a big warhead if a smaller one would do the job just as well).
Even then a Kornet/TOW should not necessarily be a 1-hit wonder(ignore the pun) because as is said in the article Jaymz has linked:

Twenty-two tanks sustained hits that penetrated their steal armor (in ten of the tanks, there were 23 fatalities; in the rest, severe damage was caused to the vehicle). Forty-four percents of the tanks hit by missiles had their armor penetrated.

If you consider that these 44% include hits from all angles and perhaps even multiple hits I think there has to be a major rethink about Kornet/TOW's capabilities.

This also tells a lot about crew survivability: 23 fatalities in 23 penetrations(with fatalities only occuring in 10 of the penetrated vehicles). Considering that the merkava has a crew of 4 thats quite good. Imho we should try to find a way to simulate that(the current system of having the tank burn is unsatisfactorily for me). Additionally tanks should not blow up as easily as they do. With all the anti fire systems and safe ammunition storage, that should be a rare case. I do not want to suggest that the tanks should not be disabled though! I'm just talking about the exploding itself.

Additionally tanks should not blow up as easily as they do. With all the anti fire systems and safe ammunition storage, that should be a rare case. I do not want to suggest that the tanks should not be disabled though! I'm just talking about the exploding itself.

Welcome to BF2 engine
For sure we would make something more advanced if we could and there are tweaks and tests being made, but in general not much we can do about it.

This also tells a lot about crew survivability: 23 fatalities in 23 penetrations(with fatalities only occuring in 10 of the penetrated vehicles). Considering that the merkava has a crew of 4 thats quite good. Imho we should try to find a way to simulate that(the current system of having the tank burn is unsatisfactorily for me)

Grozny assault in 94-95 - 30 tanks penetrated, 31 tankers killed, 10 injured + ~dozen or two tanks damaged, but without penetrations or due to technical failures, mines and falling from ridges etc. Only one tank damaged in contacts with Dudaev's T-72A's. And as far as i can tell, most were multiple hits and in weak places, not frontal armour(Compilations from Vladislav Belogrud studies). Which leads us to about same amount of fatalities per penetration.

Anyway, as i said above, there is no way so far to reflect those differences properly without other odds popping up, which will ruin all the benefits from those changes, that is even before we go into balancing issues field.

[R-DEV]DankE_SPB wrote:Grozny assault in 94-95 - 30 tanks penetrated, 31 tankers killed, 10 injured + ~dozen or two tanks damaged, but without penetrations or due to technical failures, mines and falling from ridges etc. Only one tank damaged in contacts with Dudaev's T-72A's. And as far as i can tell, most were multiple hits and in weak places, not frontal armour(Compilations from Vladislav Belogrud studies). Which leads us to about same amount of fatalities per penetration.

Well thats another argument reinforcing that tanks should be able to take a lot more punishment than they currently are. I'm not sure how things are handled in FH2 but tanks seem to shrug off rounds once and again.

On the matter of exploding. Can't you program a tank to always be disabled at below a certain percentage of health? I.e. all systems failing. Might not be entirely realistic, but definetly better than the current state.(Isn't that pretty much how disabling systems work now[with a propability smaller than 1.0 ofc])

I assume it's not possible to assign a certain type of disability(can someone suggest a better word pls? I feel a bit like a clown using that word here) to a material type,(because it would have been implemented by now if it were) so that, say, a front hit might not do a lot of % damage but has a certain propability of damaging or knocking out optics.

[R-DEV]DankE_SPB wrote:Welcome to BF2 engine

Well if you can't simulate crewmembers randomly getting killed, thats bad news i guess..
Sad Panda is sad

I think the tanks are rather well made so far actually, with exception of that cursed Challenger 2. The model itself appears to be top notch but ingame it can actually be essentially killed with one RPG-7 hit, I was playing with it once, fresh out of the main at the start and a single RPG hit my tank resulting in it bouncing like crazy. It was completely tracked, rendering us easy meat for a bomb car. Against the T-62 it usually dies in two shots to frontal armor. (Can the T-62's 115mm gun even penetrate the frontal armor on a Challenger 2?) Also on that Qin Ling map the the tank slides whenever you get on a hill, sometimes it even slides uphill making it near impossible to shoot and limiting your movements to perfectly flat areas (predictable areas and usually in the open) The WP rounds it fires do no damage to infantry as real WP. (WP does burn correct? Shouldn't a molotov-like burning be implemented for this round?) The 5 second's required for movement after stopping is quite realistic, but in game it is horribly annoying and usually will get you killed.

FH2 definitely has some sort of penetration system; works quite well in my experience.

Oh, one other thing. Is there any chance we're going to make it so that it's possible for the gunner/driver to poke their head out of their tank?

ShockUnitBlack wrote:Oh, one other thing. Is there any chance we're going to make it so that it's possible for the gunner/driver to poke their head out of their tank?

Just hit F3

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:By no stretch of the imagination can you say "it takes more than 1 modern ATGM to destroy a modern tank".

From your very source.

Another depressing statistic: Twenty-two tanks sustained hits that penetrated their steal armor (in ten of the tanks, there were 23 fatalities; in the rest, severe damage was caused to the vehicle). Forty-four percents of the tanks hit by missiles had their armor penetrated.

In anycase I am greatly looking forward to an improved surviviability given to these often cumbersome and very costly assets.

If something appeared earlier, it doesnt mean it was generation before, but a next gen appeared before its counterpart for example yeah, surprise, soviets could do something too

T-64/72/80/90 Leo2, M1 etc are all same gen tanks with their roots going back to 60's- early 70's, Leo2 and M1 were children of MBT-70, which was a project intended to replace M60 to be competitive with new soviet tanks.

Saying that the T-72/80 are of the same calibure of a T-90/M1 is quite a stretch. Specifically the T-90 is a significantly upgraded vehicle over the basic T-72 design.

Generations are rather vague anyway, there are no strict rules about it + by the time "new gen" western tanks appeared new modification of T-72 was introduced, along with T-64 upgrades and T-80.

The T-72 was, to my knowledge, developed and deployed well before the M1 was. The T-80 entered service a good few years before the M1 too. The T-72B was, I believe, introduced in response to the new western tanks, with the T-90 being a fully realized counterpart.

FYI T-90 was named T-72BU in its early days.

I know a small deal of stuff on tanks, even russian ones, and yes I knew this. (Hence the fact that it is an ungraded design based on the 72)

-----

Pfft. First it was the Militia now its the MEC... meh I'd like more counterbalnces to the tanks in general to go along with their strategic doctrine in the respective armies. Its no fun if they all have basically the same weaknesses and strengths.

A few weeks ago on Fools Road, I 1 hit killed a Challenger 2 to the front with the Militia/Insurgent RKG-3 "Anti-Tank" grenade, 5 minutes later I threw a second grenade at the front of a Scimitar, no effect.

This needs sorting.

LordLoss wrote:A few weeks ago on Fools Road, I 1 hit killed a Challenger 2 to the front with the Militia/Insurgent RKG-3 "Anti-Tank" grenade, 5 minutes later I threw a second grenade at the front of a Scimitar, no effect.

This needs sorting.

OK, you win. I thought the fact that the Chally can be destroyed with the ZiS-3 was bad

spawncaptain wrote:On Kashan, I hit an M1A2's frontal armour with the Eryx which only caused it to smoke while all functionality was retained.

Hate to break it to you, but IRL a frontal hit wouldn't even do anything except be a very loud door-knocking paint-chipping wake up call.

I believe that as a general rule casualties and penetrations of the Merkava's armor occur mostly on the sides and rear.

just read through this thread. some interesting information.

my bias is always from a gamers perspective. i prefare to see a nice balance between enjoyable gameplay elements and realism. in this regard i hate it when tanks become defencless. if your tracked...that means your tracked, not that your gun cannot rotate. and being tracked doesnt mean you should bounce and vibrate and rotate. if a tank in real life got tracked we all know what would happen, it would rotate its gun and return final defencive fire. id like to be able to defend myself if im tracked.
also it occurs to me, and i hate to say it, the challenger might need to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch. its too buggy.

2 points.
1 i think all tank frontal armour should be adjusted. in the long run it doesnt cut it. it would make tank battles more tactical anyway. (nessesity of flanking) and yes i did just contradict what i said somwhere else but i changed my mind.
2 smoke deployment duration needs to be a lot longer. like almost 2 minutes. i dont have a sause but if anyone does that would be helpful. the reasons are obvious.

Robert-The-Bruce wrote: Well if you can't simulate crewmembers randomly getting killed, thats bad news i guess..
Sad Panda is sad

this is defenitly possible. a crew member can be shot out of the seat of a tank with a heatround i've been there and done that. its not intentional but it happens. rarely.

It can and does happen with the AAV, as its the only vehicle that actually represents that. A few rounds to the drivers position will kill him, which is what makes it such a terrible vehicle.

Hopefully its either removed for the next version or all vehicles will get the feature.

deliberatly?

dtacs wrote:It can and does happen with the AAV, as its the only vehicle that actually represents that. A few rounds to the drivers position will kill him, which is what makes it such a terrible vehicle.

Hopefully its either removed for the next version or all vehicles will get the feature.

It doesn't "represent" anything, it's just another bug.