Project Reality Forums

Since 1.0 I've noticed that the T-90 and Type 98 usually come out on top of one on one tank fights about 70ish% of the time mostly because there ATGM is basically a 1 shot killer, if it fails to kill in the first shot it breaks the turret and tracks the tank. Western tanks opposing the T-90 and type 98 normally have to put 2-4 rounds into the T-90/type 98 to kill them. Shouldn't the ATGMs do less damage to Western tanks (Leo 2, Challenger 2, Abrams, and LeClerc). From doing some quick google research the ATGMs from a T-90/Type 98 can penetrate about 700-900mm of steel armor. Most of the Western tanks have estimated 1300-1000mm of frontal armor and 700-1000mm of side armor and that is before the addition of extra armor/ERA tiles.

Opfor has a more powerful asset? This can't be!

I think balance wise it's good to have Blufor disadvantaged, they normally have the better infantry equipment(Guided HATS, where say Russia has RPG) to counter superior Opfor tanks.

tankninja1 wrote:Since 1.0 I've noticed that the T-90 and Type 98 usually come out on top of one on one tank fights about 70ish% of the time mostly because there ATGM is basically a 1 shot killer, if it fails to kill in the first shot it breaks the turret and tracks the tank. Western tanks opposing the T-90 and type 98 normally have to put 2-4 rounds into the T-90/type 98 to kill them. Shouldn't the ATGMs do less damage to Western tanks (Leo 2, Challenger 2, Abrams, and LeClerc). From doing some quick google research the ATGMs from a T-90/Type 98 can penetrate about 700-900mm of steel armor. Most of the Western tanks have estimated 1300-1000mm of frontal armor and 700-1000mm of side armor and that is before the addition of extra armor/ERA tiles.

I remember discussing this as we played Silent Eagle and its cool to see you made a thread about it. Definetely needs a consideration. Right now currently there is a big imbalance and lack of realism in game the way this is portrayed.

Murphy wrote:Opfor has a more powerful asset? This can't be!

I think balance wise it's good to have Blufor disadvantaged, they normally have the better infantry equipment(Guided HATS, where say Russia has RPG) to counter superior Opfor tanks.

That may be the thinking on the devs part, for good intent but in my experience it rarely works out that way. It basically right now comes down to tank battles being near impossible and highly unbalanced. Yes other assets can take out the tanks but tank vs tank battles should be apart of the gameplay too. And right now its just way too lopsided. 1 Hit kill from the tow even to the front makes it near impossible for blu for to win any tank engagements, and ive rarely seen this. When your tank on blu for can die in one hit from a AT-GM and you have to put 3-4 ap rounds in the enemy tank no matter where you hit them it basically means you have little chance in a direct encounter(both spotting each other at the same time etc). You can argue tactics and smarts to take down the enemy tank and yes sometimes this works but i say the ratio as is in most tank encounters on maps like Silent Eagle and Shijia Valley is a 70-30% win ratio lopsided to the op for.

Something needs to be looked at and tweaked to make the tanks the most realistic and balanced. Either less damage with the TOW or removal of the TOW completely. My thoughts is to make the TOW more like a Anti- APC or lighter armor mutition as that is realistic, and only a secondary weapon to be used in tank engagements to do moderate damage with AP being the primary. Damage from AP rounds is probably pretty good as far as BF2 can simulate it, I dont see that as much of a problem on its own. The problem is your enemy has a pistol in a knife fight, where your clearly screwed the minute the encounter begins in most cases.

The aircraft on Silent Eagle are quite the opposite, with the German air power usually dominating the skies quite early on. The a-symmetrical balance tanks have is offset by other assets, much like every map in this game the design was intended to form a rock-paper-scissors effect with different assets. Sure the T90 can rape a Leo, but then the Eurofighter has already destroyed Russian CAS, and I feel it's safe to say most dog fights are 70-30 in favor of German.

I would like to bring up the Bradley vs BMP issue on Kashan and Kamisayah as a great example of how Opfor has the edge but ultimately it is circumvented by other aspects of the battle (it would be CAS in these situations as both HAT kits are fairly even).

I fear the results of any changes brought about by this thread would result in more stale symmetrical confrontations with little in the way of teamwork.

I'm suprised the German Leopards doesn't get LAHATs.

Murphy wrote:The aircraft on Silent Eagle are quite the opposite, with the German air power usually dominating the skies quite early on. The a-symmetrical balance tanks have is offset by other assets, much like every map in this game the design was intended to form a rock-paper-scissors effect with different assets. Sure the T90 can rape a Leo, but then the Eurofighter has already destroyed Russian CAS, and I feel it's safe to say most dog fights are 70-30 in favor of German.

Only thing is CAS is only useful 30% of the time. The rest of the time CAS is re-arming or dead.

Murphy wrote:The aircraft on Silent Eagle are quite the opposite, with the German air power usually dominating the skies quite early on. The a-symmetrical balance tanks have is offset by other assets, much like every map in this game the design was intended to form a rock-paper-scissors effect with different assets. Sure the T90 can rape a Leo, but then the Eurofighter has already destroyed Russian CAS, and I feel it's safe to say most dog fights are 70-30 in favor of German.

I would like to bring up the Bradley vs BMP issue on Kashan and Kamisayah as a great example of how Opfor has the edge but ultimately it is circumvented by other aspects of the battle (it would be CAS in these situations as both HAT kits are fairly even).

I fear the results of any changes brought about by this thread would result in more stale symmetrical confrontations with little in the way of teamwork.

I'd say your CAS asset analysis is fairly spot on however this discussion is on armor vs armor with CAS really having a minimal impact in my opinion. Yes sometimes you do get bombed in a vehicle but that swings either way and really has little to do with who has the better jet. When your in a tank and armor hasn't been called out in just a head to head confrontation your screwed on blu for maps that vs tanks with the TOW.

Kamisayah I feel you might be a little exaggerated. BMP 2 really doesn't do much over a bradley. Both have AT-GMs and yes the BMP 2 shoots faster but its really not a drastic advantage. I feel mostly either or have a decent chance in a head on confrontation. Could be wrong but it doesn't seem to scream obvious imbalance from my experience.

Kerryburgerking wrote:I'm suprised the German Leopards doesn't get LAHATs.

As am I because in real life I think they can be equipped with them.

tankninja1 wrote:Only thing is CAS is only useful 30% of the time. The rest of the time CAS is re-arming or dead.

Exactly true too, if you just fly around aimlessly around the map your likely to get screwed, so CAS should really only deploy when a firemission is needed. Often times anyway many players are very mediocre with CAS so most of the time its dead or a minimal factor. If you bomb 1 or 2 targets in a CAS life you've done really well. Rarely heard any team i've been on call out a Jet and it be alive for long. There are exceptions, but CAS is one of those that rarely lasts out on the battlefield for any period of time. Not to mention the long reload times and sitting in main base. Attack choppers even moreso since those are vulernable to armor unlike Jets.

Lange wrote:Kamisayah I feel you might be a little exaggerated. BMP 2 really doesn't do much over a bradley. Both have AT-GMs and yes the BMP 2 shoots faster but its really not a drastic advantage. I feel mostly either or have a decent chance in a head on confrontation. Could be wrong but it doesn't seem to scream obvious imbalance from my experience.

The Bradley is at a distinct disadvantage in a few areas. First to consider is the whole stationary to deploy ATGM, the second is the large profile. The last thing to consider is that BMP-2s are more forgiving when LAT kits are in play, the Bradley will generally get tracked the second any AT smacks it while BMPs, not unlike MTLBs, have more of a chance to limp away smoking.

Lange wrote:Exactly true too, if you just fly around aimlessly around the map your likely to get screwed, so CAS should really only deploy when a firemission is needed. Often times anyway many players are very mediocre with CAS so most of the time its dead or a minimal factor. If you bomb 1 or 2 targets in a CAS life you've done really well. Rarely heard any team i've been on call out a Jet and it be alive for long. There are exceptions, but CAS is one of those that rarely lasts out on the battlefield for any period of time. Not to mention the long reload times and sitting in main base. Attack choppers even moreso since those are vulernable to armor unlike Jets.

This brings player skill to the equation while I was going on the basis that every player is a blank slate of skill level. We could bring player skill into the mix but that would be somewhat of a moot point as we can not really balance that.

ATGM has deviation now, and it's much slower than normal AP. BLUFOR's reloading time is shorter.
Plus, M1's 120mm gun is more accurate than Type98 and T-90.
What would you use when engaging one high speed object in long range? I don't think majority of people will choose ATGM.
Everyone knows that in Kashan. M1A2 is much better than T-72, but it's still one even map coz there are other components.
When we are playing PR, we just can't ignore others, even one soilder could be 'OP' if he is carrying GTLD.

But somehow, DEVs can decrease the damage for a bit. At least they won't be that deadly anymore. I mean bigger damages than AP to the front, Heavy damages to the side(likely disable, but still have the chance to get repaired and fight the other day.) one shot or burning to the back. In this case, ATGM can be much more logical.(Better damages, but exist others disadvantages.)


Edit, Bradly is for campers. If they want to kill some armors. 2 ATGMs can be very deadly.







I don't know what kinds of role does ATGM play according to DEVs. In real life, the range is one huge advantage? But in game, no.

Murphy wrote:The last thing to consider is that BMP-2s are more forgiving when LAT kits are in play, the Bradley will generally get tracked the second any AT smacks it while BMPs,... have more of a chance to limp away smoking

It's definitely not the case. BMP-2 has less armor and less HP.
Both APCs are getting disabled in the same way.

So BMP-2s are NOT more forgiving, but less when LATs are in play.
Maybe you are talking about the BMP-3? The BMP-3 armor (atleast in PR) is more comparable to the M2A2 than BMP-2.

I agree, its too easy when facing other tanks in the t90 or type 98. I think an atgm should damage a tank in one way or another but not blow it up outright. In a game recently on wanda shan I and a few buddies were operating the leo 2 and we were not doing badly at all but simply due to the type 98's atgm's we quickly lost ground. I was always under the impression the leopard 2 could absorb atgm's in real life so it's frustrating when it instantly kills you.

Cleaned up the offtopic;
if you are unsure of how MBT AP shells work against other tanks in PR, check out this video:
MBT AP Damage - PR 1.0 - YouTube



Regarding the MBT ATGMs, we put ATGMs on tanks where its possible and common.
Maybe we can have separated T90/Type98 tank models with different armament, featuring ATGM or non.

For balancing, our mappers are trying to keep it as even as possible; if one team has stronger tanks available, they can add more air superiority, add more transport, ect.