Improve AT again

Jacksonez__ · Post by **Jacksonez__** » 2015-08-08 19:34

Have you guys ever watched those Syria urban tank battle videos? I haven't really seen infantry rolling as human shield or minesweeper there.

PolishKruk · Post by **PolishKruk** » 2015-08-08 20:34

viirusiiseli wrote:If only infantry was able to stop armor from being hit with AT... I encourage you to try using armor near friendlies in this game. You will quite soon realize infantry is a terrible help for you. What helps more is staying in the open grounds.

Infantry can quite easily, by spotting and eliminating the threat before they can take a shot. It's not my fault no one operates combined arms squads in this game. I think it is incredibly stupid that we have one tank squad that controls three tanks. Instead we should have three combined arms squads with one tank and four-six infantry.

I know I might blow a few minds here but there is this unique principal called "mutual support".

Mech Inf squads work this way so it makes zero sense to me that tanks don't follow a similar principle.

But I do agree with you. Tanks belong in the open, but when they must operate in urban environments they must do so with infantry support to survive.

PolishKruk · Post by **PolishKruk** » 2015-08-08 20:35

Jacksonez__ wrote:Have you guys ever watched those Syria urban tank battle videos? I haven't really seen infantry rolling as human shield or minesweeper there.

Who said anything about communist style wave clearing tactics? I'm talking about combined arms and mutual support.

Jacksonez__ · Post by **Jacksonez__** » 2015-08-08 20:49

I know I might blow a few minds here but there is this unique principal called "mutual support".

Combined arms as in mechanized infantry? I see that every day on the servers I play on. Tank+infantry squad? How about asking the tank squad if your inf squad can take a tank. I doubt it highly, but yeah.

Make a tank squad and make mech-inf with tank squad, lol. Not the tank squad fault if they don't want to give their assets to infantry squads.

PR can never achieve the same slow pace that real life warfare has. It's a video game. You don't 3-6 hours rolling through a city with tank unless you can get 50 vs 50 role-play event where death->permanent death and no respawn. You just can't adapt every real life tactic to PR.

I get your point about tank supporting inf in city, but nah. This game is about having fun not enforcing highly wrought pin point accuracy tactics on public servers.

PolishKruk · Post by **PolishKruk** » 2015-08-08 21:20

Combined arms is traditionally armor and infantry. I guess nowadays it would be armor + mech inf. But that would be a lot of assets for one squad. But the point is, the tank prevents the infantry from getting overrun and the infantry prevent the tank from getting ambushed. This isn't hard to implement in game. It's already happening with mech inf squads. I'm just saying combine a tank with infantry to make comms that much quicker. Local chat is a nightmare around armor and its incredibly slow to relay something from one SL to another. If we had a tank supporting infantry in the same squad they could all identify and counter threats in real time without C&C issues.

I agree, it's just a game. I think it would be fun to try but the rules of the game make it unlikely if not impossible.

Murphy · Post by **Murphy** » 2015-08-10 19:06

Infantry gets stuck in their own fight and the HAT guy who was making his way across the map now has a stationary target who is essentially blind, relying upon an infantry SL, who is waiting to get revived, to tell them the HAT kit is on a rooftop around the corner.

In real war you can just take up a good position and call the support in to destroy the enemy compound/position, PR cannot simulate punching a whole right through walls.

I've done my fair share of Combined Arms, and it never works out as intended. First off the AT guys on the enemy team will evade your forces and WILL get that shot off where in real life they likely never had a chance to leave their mud shack. The only way to handle combined arms and maintain an armored presence without costing your team every armored asset is to have your infantry play the same objective as your Armour crews. A good AT player has the patience and skill to evade the enemy squad and make his shot count, you cannot counter this when you've got two guys in a tank looking through straws.

Oddly enough, just because you don't see the tank mixed in with your infantry boys doesn't mean they aren't supporting you. Tanks tend to be much more effective cutting off enemy reinforcements and handling dug in enemies, we don't want to fight an opponent who has us as top priority.

Tanks crews are more effective when you can employ distance as your first defense, unfortunately Infantry have to get close in to be effective. This is where the disconnect arises, because a solid Armour crew will do everything in their power to keep said asset alive, including forsaking an infantry push into a build up area/fob with active AT.

This is the reality of the gamey side of PR. Many groups have tried to incorporate real life tactics and strategy into PR, but most have failed horrible because the gamey aspects of this game will throw a wrench in spokes. It's best to emphasize on the gamey qualities of the overall meta-game, if you focus on forcing real tactics you will fail on a larger scale than if you had just gone with conventional PR knowledge.

viirusiiseli · Post by **viirusiiseli** » 2015-08-10 19:49

Murphy wrote:Tanks crews are more effective when you can employ distance as your first defense, unfortunately Infantry have to get close in to be effective. This is where the disconnect arises, because a solid Armour crew will do everything in their power to keep said asset alive, including forsaking an infantry push into a build up area/fob with active AT.

This is the reality of the gamey side of PR. Many groups have tried to incorporate real life tactics and strategy into PR, but most have failed horrible because the gamey aspects of this game will throw a wrench in spokes. It's best to emphasize on the gamey qualities of the overall meta-game, if you focus on forcing real tactics you will fail on a larger scale than if you had just gone with conventional PR knowledge.

Couldn't have said it better

PolishKruk · Post by **PolishKruk** » 2015-08-11 00:25

Murphy wrote:Infantry gets stuck in their own fight and the HAT guy who was making his way across the map now has a stationary target who is essentially blind, relying upon an infantry SL, who is waiting to get revived, to tell them the HAT kit is on a rooftop around the corner.

It took me a sec to understand this. But I get what you mean and that is how comms with a tank are currently handled. I'm suggesting playing a tank in a combined arms squad just like mech infantry. That way you don't need to rely on SL communication because that squad is now an independent unit. All of its members can communicate efficiently together and call out threats using squad chat.

PR does a good job of simulating comms across units and just like in real life with having to use RTO's the squad leader channel tanks a long time to send information. Also, the squad net is not limited in range like local chat is. So the squad's infantry element can move into a cqc environment while the armor stays on overwatch and still has effective communication that doesn't rely on one person.

Infantry cannot fight tanks. We need armor to fight hostile armor. When friendly armor goes willy nilly into the hills and gets picked off by a tow or a hat or whatever then your infantry and team are screwed.

I'm merely suggesting an alternative to the numerous less than stellar armor squads that have been popping up. Infantry can only do so much alone. Give them proper support and they can move mountains.

Hurricane · Post by **Hurricane** » 2015-08-11 05:15

PolishKruk wrote:I'm suggesting playing a tank in a combined arms squad just like mech infantry. That way you don't need to rely on SL communication because that squad is now an independent unit. All of its members can communicate efficiently together and call out threats using squad chat.

The difference between those types of vehicles is the ability to actually transport troops and have them mount up or dismount when needed. With the exception of the Merkava, no tank has seats for infantry, therefore the infantry has no means to keep up with the tank unless they take a truck which doesn't offer any protection whatsoever, making it a great target; and is possibly not even available on certain maps or very limited in numbers so other infantry squads are stuck with no transport.

PolishKruk wrote: Infantry cannot fight tanks. We need armor to fight hostile armor. When friendly armor goes willy nilly into the hills and gets picked off by a tow or a hat or whatever then your infantry and team are screwed.

I'm merely suggesting an alternative to the numerous less than stellar armor squads that have been popping up. Infantry can only do so much alone. Give them proper support and they can move mountains.

Infantry can fight tanks. The HAT kit and ATGM emplacements (TOW) are serious threats to all armor. As is lazing them for CAS or simply marking them on the map without having your own tank right on your position to be immediately spotted by the enemy, giving it an opportunity to flank the enemy tank and engage them from the side/back.

A tank is going to be picked off by ATGMs much more likely if it doesn't use distance to its advantage. I get what you're suggesting and it would actually be neat if it worked that way, but as of now having tanks and inf in one squad is a constructed scenario; the benefits of improved communications doesn't even begin to make up for the tactical disadvantages of tanks not being able to pick their own positions and using their great long range combat capabilities.

A good team that actually communicates between squads and marks enemy forces on the map does everything you want but doesn't restrict freedom of movement for armor. Speaking of this, imo one of the best ways to use tanks is in a semi-defensive manner by moving it to an area of interest, into a position that offers some cover and lock down the area completely for enemy forces, severely restricting their freedom of movement.

PolishKruk · Post by **PolishKruk** » 2015-08-11 05:45

PolishKruk wrote: PR does a good job of simulating comms across units and just like in real life with having to use RTO's the squad leader channel tanks a long time to send information. Also, the squad net is not limited in range like local chat is. So the squad's infantry element can move into a cqc environment while the armor stays on overwatch and still has effective communication that doesn't rely on one person.

Hurricane wrote:The difference between those types of vehicles is the ability to actually transport troops and have them mount up or dismount when needed. With the exception of the Merkava, no tank has seats for infantry, therefore the infantry has no means to keep up with the tank unless they take a truck which doesn't offer any protection whatsoever, making it a great target; and is possibly not even available on certain maps or very limited in numbers so other infantry squads are stuck with no transport.

Infantry can fight tanks. The HAT kit and ATGM emplacements (TOW) are serious threats to all armor. As is lazing them for CAS or simply marking them on the map without having your own tank right on your position to be immediately spotted by the enemy, giving it an opportunity to flank the enemy tank and engage them from the side/back.

A tank is going to be picked off by ATGMs much more likely if it doesn't use distance to its advantage. I get what you're suggesting and it would actually be neat if it worked that way, but as of now having tanks and inf in one squad is a constructed scenario; the benefits of improved communications doesn't even begin to make up for the tactical disadvantages of tanks not being able to pick their own positions and using their great long range combat capabilities.

A good team that actually communicates between squads and marks enemy forces on the map does everything you want but doesn't restrict freedom of movement for armor. Speaking of this, imo one of the best ways to use tanks is in a semi-defensive manner by moving it to an area of interest, into a position that offers some cover and lock down the area completely for enemy forces, severely restricting their freedom of movement.

You didn't quote my comment that actually discusses the issues you mentioned so here it is:

PolishKruk wrote: PR does a good job of simulating comms across units and just like in real life with having to use RTO's the squad leader channel tanks a long time to send information. Also, the squad net is not limited in range like local chat is. So the squad's infantry element can move into a cqc environment while the armor stays on overwatch and still has effective communication that doesn't rely on one person.

I do agree with you. But what's wrong with taking a truck? Also, communication in game now sucks. Squads don't work together, they just might be next to each other but then still can't rely on each other. Games rarely have commanders directing heavy assets to the areas where they are needed most. So now most Tank/APC squads operate independently without infantry to recon and pass intelligence.

Infantry are the eyes and the ears of an army. If a tank gets taken out by a tow emplacement it's because it outpaced its infantry and went into unknown territory effectively blind.

Anyway, I mainly started this by talking about armor in urban environments where it absolutely needs infantry to survive. Outside of that you guys are also correct.

Here's a good quote about tanks and infantry: "Infantry were made to walk. If we had to go somewhere that was too far to walk then we rode on the back of tanks." - Colonel David Hackworth - About Face

Besides, you can't tell me that there isn't an infantry squad leader in PR that wouldn't love to have an Abrams in his pocket.

Post by **Frontliner** » 2015-08-15 11:41

I don't know Murphy, I've been Mech-Infing a number of times and the results are - more often than not - satisfactory. Although it is my recommendation to always use an ATGM IFV(discouting Inf-layouts and similar*), you have to accept that sometimes you lose your APC, or your Infantry, or both - even if you prepare for everything, you're still not invincible. Once you're past that, you can do an evaluation in terms of "Was it a favourable trade-off in terms of tickets? Did we get enough Map Control with our Mech Inf Squad? Did we manage to bind enough important resources(enemy HAT/Tanks/APCs/ATGM Vehs./CAS) on us, leaving the enemy vulnerable elsewhere?". And only if you can answer all of these with a "no" it means it wasn't worth it during that round. But I can tell there's maps that allows for good Mech Inf to happen, and others don't(it also depends on the APC/IFV you field).

*I can recall a round on Silent Eagle Inf as Russians, using the .30 cal MTLB as fire support vehicle. It worked surprisingly well, the Pzf 3 has a hard time dealing with those due to the low profile, and the squads couldn't muster enough firepower on us to force us to retreat.

X-Alt · Post by **X-Alt** » 2015-08-15 15:26

Raw data of T-62 .tweak file. Crit damage is normal, nothing out of the ordinary..

Spoiler for mil_tnk_t62.tweak:

brunoff · Post by **brunoff** » 2015-08-28 22:17

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:I think your not quite understanding what I'm saying. My point was that ingame, tanks rarely go into an engagement with full 100% HP due to the fact that terrain damage, something that we can't really stop and is also somewhat realistic, will knock off a bit of your HP % which in some cases can make the difference between you being in critical damage after being hit, or not.

Critical damage is at 10% HP for land vehicles as K4on said so if you took 5% HP Damage before an engagement from the terrain or w/e, then got hit by an AT Missile which took off 85% of your HP, that would mean you would only have 10% HP left and would be in critical damage.

This is probably why damage feels "random" sometimes because you can't see what level your HP is at, nor can the person firing at you, other than if your smoking or not. And if a tank received a L-AT hit before receiving a H-AT hit, can make the difference between it blowing up instantly, or not even being in critical damage.

Since we started talking about terrain damage, there's one little question I'd like to know. Does every damage a vehicle takes from terrain has that red effect on the driver's hud or there's damage taken with no signs for the driver.

Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again

Re: Improve AT again