Project Reality Forums

IDK, it just feels like they are taking away our toys because we have too much fun?

If we resolve balancing issues by removing the problem assets are we really finding a solid solution on the ground level ? (I mean to say will this make a difference to the guy on the TOW/with the HAT) Will the duel between a Tank and AT be any different in the end of it all, or will it just end up with AT being able to overwhelm Armour by virtue of number of assets?

I guess this is where I'm supposed to suggest an alternative, but other than taking small shots at tweaking damage values and maybe making TOWs more responsive (possibly including quicker to dig up, allowing INF easier time to fortify) I think lowering the number of heavily armored assets might be the easiest band-aid.

A lot of people will be considering that infantry can simply play with more intelligence and simply avoid Armour that is positioned in a powerful location, which is how you handle being surprised by a Tank. Ideally I'd like it so that said Tank cannot sit perched on a hill and dominate the surrounding area without fear of reprisal, this will not be achieved by simply removing a tank or putting it on delayed spawn.

One of the biggest things about no spawn delay tanks especially is that they are rolling out and raping inf either when they are still in their trucks or before they can get a proper fob and tow network. Plus combined with the fact on rollout you know where the enemy is going to be, there isn't too much hiding or surprising. Atleast 20 even 10 minutes into a game the battle has spread out, a decent team should have multiple frontline fobs with tows and back up fobs, ambush teams have been able yo move into position and people should be braced for the impact of tanks.

About at vs armour balance, I don't think changing the hat too much is needed. It's a mobile asset and should be able to decide it's own destiny in regards to getting a side or rear shot. The bigger thing are the replaced missiles which can't move and even when they get accidentally found by a tank driving at them, they are at a disadvantage. Upping the missile damage of an atgm enmplacement against front armour to the equivalent of an AP shot would atleast make most armour think twice about staying in the fight

Initial delay will be different than respawn delay.

Is it possible to change back hit models with multiple areas? For example, turret front should be very strong and a hit to it should do 35% damage while a hit to the side of the turret should do 50% damage, requiring only 2 hits to kill a tank.
Furthermore, if possible, the upper hull front shouldn't be as strong as the turret front, therefore it should take about 60% damage, while a hit to the lower hull front and turret rear should immediately blow up the tank (100% damage) since that is where the ammo is stored and the armor is quite weak. Also the front part of the hull side should take 50% damage while the rear part of the hull side and the rear side of the hull should take 70% damage, disabling the tank.

I can't seem to find the hit models, if anyone can link them I might illustrate it for better comprehension. But first of all, would it be possible to actually alter the hit models in such a way?

Looking for this?
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-pr-highlights/140942-tank-armor-changes.html

Yeah, that's the one, thanks, I must've used all the wrong keywords. Anyway, what I'm proposing is a hitmodel set up like this:

Front:



Area 1: Strongest part of the tank. An ATGM hit to the turret should do 35% damage. 2 hits = disabled, 3 hits = explosion.

Area 2: Upper hull, not as strong. An ATGM should do 50-60% damage.

Area 3: Lower hull, weakest frontal armor, high explosive ammo storage. ATGMs should immediately blow up the tank (100% damage).


Side:



Area 1: Should be considered as frontal armor since there's no angle calculation in PR and even the slightest angle will enable someone to hit it and do the same damage as it was a full-on, 90-degree angle shot. Same as Area 1 in the Front part.

Area 2: ATGM hits should do 90% damage and set the tank on fire since that is the crew compartment. (Maybe the area 2 on the turret should take more damage since it also serves as ammo storage, although usually for inert ammo)

Area 3: Engine hit, most likely crew survives, therefore, an ATGM should do 70% damage and disable the tank.


Rear:



Area 1: Turret rear, should do 100% damage, ammo storage, weak armor.

Area 2: Engine hit, not much armor but the engine is huge, therefore, 70% damage and the tank gets disabled, the crew has time to bail out.

Afaik not all tanks store their ammo in the lower frontal hull. And even when stored there most modern tanks have blowout panels, which generally prevent the tank from being destroyed by exploding/deflagrating ammo. In that case significant damage would still be warranted, maybe like 50 percent to simulate a firepower kill and make the tank RTB.

DogACTUAL wrote:Afaik not all tanks store their ammo in the lower frontal hull. And even when stored there most modern tanks have blowout panels, which generally prevent the tank from being destroyed by exploding/deflagrating ammo. In that case significant damage would still be warranted, maybe like 50 percent to simulate a firepower kill and make the tank RTB.

Tell that to the Turkish Leopard 2A4s in Syria right now. Regardless, a hit to the lower plate will be a 100% penetration with ATGM and it will either be the driver or the ammo rack that is going to take the hit. Unless it is a Merkava, in which case the engine is at the front.

The only blowout area in most tanks that has the ammo protected behind armour and separated from the crew is in the turret. The hull usually has it's ammunition out in the open only behind the regular tank armour.

I'd rellay like to see Kashan/Khami with two tanks instead of three.
One less tank makes a big difference in firepower (3 tanks one hit kill 1 enemy tank) and you can't do the
2-1 split anymore.That should atleast mitigate the gap between experienced and rookie tank crews.

Why do you want to water down the mechanics for the nubs? Why not reward tanks that stick together for their tactics and teamwork instead of making it easier for lone wolf tanks?

The 'rookies' should step up their game and adopt 'experienced' tactics if they want to do better, that's how it works.

What exactly do you have in mind by watering down the mechanics?

Okay, people who complained about frontal armour making TOWs borderline useless against MBTs have a point.

Why not give the lower frontal glacis side armour values? This would go a long way but still keep the reason behind the initial decision intact. It is also a genuine weak spot for most tanks, so it would be authentic.

Would encourage more nifty gameplay on part of the tank crew, instead of just the usual 'rolling up on the TOW while making sure to align the tank so no side armour is exposed'. Like for example then crews would have more of an incentive to take hull down positions, especially when facing tanks with gun launched missiles. I think this would potentially fix the whole issue while still mantaining strong frontal armour.

Well that would also be realistic because the lower glacis on most tanks is not that strong and behind it is usually the ammo compartment with explosive rounds.

That is an interesting idea, Dog. Gives both assets some challenge.

DogACTUAL wrote:Why not give the lower frontal glacis side armour values? This would go a long way but still keep the reason behind the initial decision intact. It is also a genuine weak spot for most tanks, so it would be authentic.

No.

Several reasons:
1. ATGMs spiral, especially Milan, Kornet and Malyutka. This rules out your suggestion from being feasible for 2 out of 3 buildable ATGM emplacements.
2. Tanks however have perfect accuracy and would love to hit side-armour every time, even more so with the current disabling mechanics.
3. Furthermore Vehicle launched ATGMs gain a oneshot point on frontal, so we're back to the Pre-1.3 Tonk Meta.
4. Most Western armies have increased their protection on the lower glacis over the course of the last 15 years, so there goes your authenticity.
5. We don't do realistic capabilities as much in tanks otherwise the T-72 - regardless of variant - would we noticeably more shit than an Abrams/Leopard/Challenger.

Would encourage more nifty gameplay on part of the tank crew, instead of just the usual 'rolling up on the TOW while making sure to align the tank so no side armour is exposed'. Like for example then crews would have more of an incentive to take hull down positions, especially when facing tanks with gun launched missiles. I think this would potentially fix the whole issue while still mantaining strong frontal armour.

6. You can't do hull-down in this game in about 99% of ingame situations due to how the terrain works.
7. What you call nifty is just going back on the Pre-1.3 garbage Meta where positioning didn't matter because people would just aim for the cheeky weakpoints anyways, except now the weakpoint is a bigger target.

I have the solution for this. (and it is similar to the jet/aa problem)

Revert tank armour/tow damage to v1.3.9!

The DEVs already explained why they won't revert the AA system, it would be more work than to just fix what we have currently. You should stop constantly asking for a revert, it isn't gonna happen.
So posting this everytime is unproductive as it won't lead to any real solutions and tbh these posts border on being spam. Instead focus on them fixing the current system.

ATGMs spiral, especially Milan, Kornet and Malyutka. This rules out your suggestion from being feasible for 2 out of 3 buildable ATGM emplacements.
........
Furthermore Vehicle launched ATGMs gain a oneshot point on frontal

While they have some inaccuracy, they are still more accurate than you think. You can still pretty reliably hit a vehicle with them when only the its turret is peeking out behind cover for example. And what is it, first you say spiraling ATGMs are shit at hitting stuff and then you say vehicle ATGMs will be OP. The truth is, especially at distance, hitting the lower glacis would be a challenge. But at least TOW emplacements would have a fighting chance against a tank that is pushing them.

Tanks however have perfect accuracy and would love to hit side-armour every time, even more so with the current disabling mechanics.

Exactly this is why it would be balanced. An ATGM hit on side armour material would put the tank below 10% hit points, meaning the tank would start burning. While an AP hit would put it below 25%, leading to black smoke. Apart from the tank burning instead of just being heavily damaged, the difference is negligible, especially if you factor in that AP has the accuracy and velociy advantage over the gun launched missile, which pretty much balances it out.

In both cases, the tank that was hit in the lower glacis would be practically out of commission and as good as destroyed, most likely the gun being disabled as well. So it would be the classic 'whoever shoots first wins' in pretty much all cases.

Most Western armies have increased their protection on the lower glacis over the course of the last 15 years, so there goes your authenticity.
........
We don't do realistic capabilities as much in tanks otherwise the T-72 - regardless of variant - would we noticeably more shit than an Abrams/Leopard/Challenger.

Aren't those statements contradictory? I mean it is obvious from the tank models in the game and other stuff that the equipment featured in the game isn't meant to be the very latest stuff. I don't see any add on armour packages on the tank models (apart from that elusive M1 TUSK) and infantry is still using weapons that are already phased out and replaced by new stuff our are in the middle of that process. The equipment seems to be from around 20 years ago with some exceptions.

You can't do hull-down in this game in about 99% of ingame situations due to how the terrain works

Please explain this. Do you mean sliding? You can still go hull down in most instances without sliding.

...where positioning didn't matter because people would just aim for the cheeky weakpoints anyways, except now the weakpoint is a bigger target.

Good asset players are still aiming for side armour once just a fraction of it is exposed, making for very strange and unauthentic, 'gamey' shots that make no sense when being viewed from a 'milsim' standpoint. Extreme highly angled shots that would bounce or shatter and be ineffective when done by a genuine tank.

With the weaker lower glacis they instead would aim for frontal armour shots that make sense when a tank is facing another tank head on. And tanks that would use strategic positioning to protect/hide their lower glacis would be rewarded. I really thought all of this through before i made my suggestion, i really think with the limitations of this game engine, this adjustment would lead to the best meta for tanks and AT.

DogACTUAL wrote: While they have some inaccuracy, they are still more accurate than you think. You can still pretty reliably hit a vehicle with them when only the its turret is peeking out behind cover for example. And what is it, first you say spiraling ATGMs are shit at hitting stuff and then you say vehicle ATGMs will be OP. The truth is, especially at distance, hitting the lower glacis would be a challenge. But at least TOW emplacements would have a fighting chance against a tank that is pushing them.

"They are still more accurate than you think."

The problem is that the heavy spiraling kills reliability, and where reliability falls short, luck takes its place. I much prefer discouraging tanks from going up against ATGM Emps by making them powerful enough that a tank has to be more than wary of their position.

Exactly this is why it would be balanced. An ATGM hit on side armour material would put the tank below 10% hit points, meaning the tank would start burning. While an AP hit would put it below 25%, leading to black smoke. Apart from the tank burning instead of just being heavily damaged, the difference is negligible, especially if you factor in that AP has the accuracy and velociy advantage over the gun launched missile, which pretty much balances it out.

While you're admittedly sort of correct, as far as Tanks oneshotting each other is concerned, balance is not the main concern whatsoever though. The main concern is that what you are suggesting sounds pretty much like the pre-1.3 Tonk v Tonk meta, and that meta was garbage in terms of gameplay compared to what we have now.

In both cases, the tank that was hit in the lower glacis would be practically out of commission and as good as destroyed, most likely the gun being disabled as well. So it would be the classic 'whoever shoots first wins' in pretty much all cases.

Except there is no option to retreat anymore when you're put below 10% of health. One of the reasons why the old tank meta was trash was that there was no way to disengage from bad spots once the first shot hit. While the first shot advantage is most significant part of tank combat, it is important for gameplay that not all hope is lost for the defender. Toss out smoke and retreat to base OR try to ambush the tank that's about to pursuit you.

Aren't those statements contradictory? I mean it is obvious from the tank models in the game and other stuff that the equipment featured in the game isn't meant to be the very latest stuff. I don't see any add on armour packages on the tank models (apart from that elusive M1 TUSK) and infantry is still using weapons that are already phased out and replaced by new stuff our are in the middle of that process. The equipment seems to be from around 20 years ago with some exceptions.

The point is that you're trying to bring in realism, but the Tank v Tank combat is all but that, it's balanced to the point that even some crappy old Iraqi T-72s have a chance going up against the latest stuff NATO brings. What's actually authentic is that everything the Russians, Chinese, MECsicans or Insurgents bring to combat goes up in 2 shots max from NATO Armour. Sounds like fun, eh?

We're completely aware that the lower glacis is less armoured than other parts of the frontal armour, but we're not mimicing that because it makes for shit gameplay as mentioned quite clearly above.

Please explain this. Do you mean sliding? You can still go hull down in most instances without sliding.

Roll up any tank towards a slope in order to get in a hull-down position and one of two things will happen in almost every circumstance:
1. You can't shoot over the slope
2. You can't aim down on your target without exposing your lower side.

Only if your target has height advantage over you will you be able to hit it. Your suggestion is simply not feasible.

Good asset players are still aiming for side armour once just a fraction of it is exposed, making for very strange and unauthentic, 'gamey' shots that make no sense when being viewed from a 'milsim' standpoint. Extreme highly angled shots that would bounce or shatter and be ineffective when done by a genuine tank.

We're aware and we have to live with the limitations the engine brings. I personally would like to see slight deviation on the tanks to discourage aiming for little weakspots like that by making it possible that your shot misses completely.

Since your suggestion does not address this issue I fail to see the a reason why we introduce some more crappy weakspot shooting in order to address this? I mean, you're aware how shit the above is, why do you feel the need to add more?