TANK superiority

[HAAN4]

This is, Abrhans can kill alot of other tanks, and can only be macth by some of bluefor other tanks,

the meaning of this is to ADD the handcap for vehicles fieghts,

all other factions that have poor tanks, of course will Earn extra ones, has well have their tricket couth decresed by 5.

MEC/RUSSIA/CHINA are exemples, of factions whicht tank inferioty,

A abrhans for exemple, can get much, much much more hit's, do their uranion armor.


this is PROJECT REALITY, and we must face it, Americans army is the best in world. they got REALLY EVIL WEOPOWS.

has well give all other had caps to all armys, for exemple, other factions LMG will not get zoon, because they are not suposed to have zoon!.

[Expendable Grunt]

I am under the impression that the Russian T-90's in the same class as the Abrams, which is outclassed by the Challenger 2.

M.

[mat552]

Reality < Game Balance (At least as far as PR goes)

[Bellator]

I dont think that slight quality advantages of US Abrams would count as a game changer. The abrams isn't radically superior compared to a modernized t-72. Assuming if both tanks receive the appropriate support in the battlefield, a modernized t-72 can perform reasonably well --- why wouldn't it? Furthermore, in all the wars that the US has so far fought with Abrams at its disposal, the US has wielded vast strategic advantages that are much more important that slight quality differences: hence the great performance of the US military and its tanks. And, well, Iraqi vehicles and crews weren't exactly the best in the Middle East, and they didn't receive the same support as US armour.

[Nebsif]

wut?
I didnt understand what ur suggesting, but each tank has its weakness and strenght, like high armor but low mobility, high mobility but low armor etc. idk if Abrams is better than T-80 (the RUS/MEC tank), but I do kno that BRDM > Bradley and that US AA > MEC AA, thats the balance behind the asset layot and stuff...

Back to tanks, while T-80 seems pretty much equal to Abrams, theres a biggy difference between teh Challenger and the Chinese Tank (T-60?). Challenger is super duper armored, but slower & its turret is clumsy/slow, while teh chinese one is faster, has better turret handling but lower armor.

Yesterday I played a round on quinling and had a 1v1 CQ tank battle (like 20m from each other), me in T-60 vs challenger. It took 3 hits with teh anti tank shell in challenger's left/right side to take it down, and the challenger gunner hit us only once in the front cuz we kept moving around faster than they could. U may say that teh other tank crew failed, but thats just a small example of teh difference between various tanks.

[rampo]

A abrhans for exemple, can get much, much much more hit's, do their uranion armor.

I thought the abrams just had sum 1337 uranium thingy rounds? Howeveries i hear the challanger 2 armor beats the **** outta pretty much everything

[Expendable Grunt]

Damn it Rampo, every time I see your avatar out the corner of my eye I think it's BobMarley.

M.

[rampo]

Damn it Rampo, every time I see your avatar out the corner of my eye I think it's BobMarley.

So THATS why people don't direspect me no more!!

[joethepro36]

IMO realistic tank differences are effectively minimal/non-existant in PR terms.

Abrams' biggest advantage over a russian tank is common use of thermal optics and the like which isn't part of PR (yet). Russian tanks are pretty much equal if not superior to american tanks otherwise. If you really want to debate which is the best modern tank currently in PR, it would be the challenger 2 due to slightly superior armour (and much higher cost) than other tanks.

So basically tanks are fine as they are. A change apparently coming soon is t-72's reduced armour compensated by AT missiles.

[Ccharge]

This is, Abrhans can kill alot of other tanks, and can only be macth by some of bluefor other tanks,

the meaning of this is to ADD the handcap for vehicles fieghts,

all other factions that have poor tanks, of course will Earn extra ones, has well have their tricket couth decresed by 5.

MEC/RUSSIA/CHINA are exemples, of factions whicht tank inferioty,

A abrhans for exemple, can get much, much much more hit's, do their uranion armor.


this is PROJECT REALITY, and we must face it, Americans army is the best in world. they got REALLY EVIL WEOPOWS.

has well give all other had caps to all armys, for exemple, other factions LMG will not get zoon, because they are not suposed to have zoon!.

ummm... you need to slow down here buddy. Theres alot of places were the american army falls behind in other things. yes the abrams is great but theres alot of tanks out there that can match it and beat it. Challenger 2 for example, awesome tank, the Leopard tank is another great one.

Theres also the whole gameplay thing. If you simply just make it like this it will be another reason for everybody to go teamswitching to the US.

Oh and on a last note, the newest russian T-90's can kill a abrams quite easily.

[boilerrat]

Abrams armor is actually layered with many different things like

DEPLETED uranium
Steel
Kevlar
Aluminum?

It also has reactive armor plates on most of it.

[Rudd]

R-DEV Jaymz has said in the past that a system of less tanks with faster reload rates etc could be put against teams with more tanks

personally I prefer the idea of such balance isntead of 'all tanks are basically hte same'

though with teh new USI model for the american tanks there hopefully won't be the stupid bug we've had with them so far.

Remember though, PR is set in a future a bit, so the MEC tanks could be anything really.

Tanks in general imo should get a boost though, I'd much rather take an APC these days for TOWs.

Boost imo = more accuate coax and main gun

the FCS from CA could be considered, though with a smaller degree required for lock

increase the respawn time on HATs maybe as well. I'd rather see more LATs on the battlfield anyway on most maps.

[Expendable Grunt]

If faction A had tanks that were no good against the tanks of faction B for good reason, it wouldn't bother me so much. It's still a useful vehicle, just not against the other tanks.

M.

[Hunt3r]

R-DEV Jaymz has said in the past that a system of less tanks with faster reload rates etc could be put against teams with more tanks

personally I prefer the idea of such balance isntead of 'all tanks are basically hte same'

though with teh new USI model for the american tanks there hopefully won't be the stupid bug we've had with them so far.

Remember though, PR is set in a future a bit, so the MEC tanks could be anything really.

Tanks in general imo should get a boost though, I'd much rather take an APC these days for TOWs.

Boost imo = more accuate coax and main gun

the FCS from CA could be considered, though with a smaller degree required for lock

increase the respawn time on HATs maybe as well. I'd rather see more LATs on the battlfield anyway on most maps.

FCS only if it's been lased, because otherwise it'd just be ridiculous in terms of how easily you could dominate the other team.

Besides, you could fire randomly and the shell would fly into a tank even if you didn't lock. Remember: Allowing you to find the target by yourself and kill it yourself isn't teamwork.

FLIR also allows you to find targets yourself.

No FLIR, no FCS. It encourages lonewolfing.

[goguapsy]

BMP3 TOW > Abrams.
And AFAIK, BMP3 > Bradley.

Therefore, if you are saying Abrams > T-72, remember, BMP3 > Bradley.

[Rudd]

No FLIR, no FCS. It encourages lonewolfing.

Tanks IRL have a stabilisation system that allows them to attack targets on the move, a computer assited targetting method.

Its not like it can lock on to infantry

the CA FCS simulates this by allowing you to lock on to enemy vehicles when your target reticle is near to the vehicle

The arguement against the FCS is that it can sometimes behave oddly when the target moves.

the arguement against FLIR is that it cannot be accurately represented in this game, not that it encourages lonewolfing.

Heck, remove teh sniper kit...it encourages lone wolfing, omg the A10 has a cannon that doesn't require lazes, remove it immediately!!! remove the tank's zoom! it encouarges lone wolfing, remove patches from all the infantry, it encouarges lone wolfing, remove ammo from the riflemen, it encouarges lonewolfing.

This is about realism and gameplay, players cannot be modded.

[Drunkenup]

BMP3 TOW > Abrams.
And AFAIK, BMP3 > Bradley.

Therefore, if you are saying Abrams > T-72, remember, BMP3 > Bradley.

How increasingly true. Which motivates me to keep trying to find a way for the Bradley's TOW to be able to be used as soon as selected.

Even though people may see me have the common biased opinion, I believe that it should indeed be balenced. If we can't get the Bradley's TOWs to be able to be used immeadiately, then I believe the Reactive armor tiles should be integrated to the Bradley as well as a increase in Armor.

The issue with the Abrams that is, the MEC not being a actual force and we don't know what they would be issued, so I would say a T-90 and or equivilant for the MEC.

[Hunt3r]

Tanks IRL have a stabilisation system that allows them to attack targets on the move, a computer assited targetting method.

Its not like it can lock on to infantry

the CA FCS simulates this by allowing you to lock on to enemy vehicles when your target reticle is near to the vehicle

The arguement against the FCS is that it can sometimes behave oddly when the target moves.

the arguement against FLIR is that it cannot be accurately represented in this game, not that it encourages lonewolfing.

Heck, remove teh sniper kit...it encourages lone wolfing, omg the A10 has a cannon that doesn't require lazes, remove it immediately!!! remove the tank's zoom! it encouarges lone wolfing, remove patches from all the infantry, it encouarges lone wolfing, remove ammo from the riflemen, it encouarges lonewolfing.

This is about realism and gameplay, players cannot be modded.

FLIR and FCS in tanks is like allowing attack helicopters to lock onto ground vehicles that are manned. Teamwork evaporates.

[Expendable Grunt]

What you're really saying is that the BMP3 rapes face.

M.

[goguapsy]

What you're really saying is that the BMP3 rapes face.

M.

Yep.

On a Kashan Round me and 5 other guys (some of them IHS members) lost a lot of armored vehicles. Of course it was more of a test round because only 20 people were in (it was TG), but most of us got killed by a BMP3 TOW. Tanks, Bradleys, AA guns.