Project Reality Forums

Ima total tank/asset whore, after joining the PRT and doing some research about tanks and afters looots of PR tanking exp I finally decided to post sum feedback about teh tanks in PR.

1)All tanks have weakpoints/strongpoints - front, side, rear, top and wierd armor types/parts.
You can 1 shot tanks by hitting the front lights/periscopes, or do heavy damage/1 shot with TOW by hitting the track wheels which is same as if u'd hit the engine.
Most people dont know exactly where to shoot but in competitive play it gets ugly.
The best tank in terms of weakpoints would be the Leopard 2 because it only has frontal,side and rear armor and the tracks arent a weakpoint of epic doom and destruction. Imo all tanks should be more or less like it, so what if u cant hear a glassy sound when u hit periscope with a knife.

2)Tank's main advantage should be the distance they can engage stuff, because of engine limitations the max distance would be 1km at best.
Once again, because of engine limitations u cant fire on the move, making u an easier target.
Another thing is that there's nothing you can do about a guy/s going prone/crouch -> stand -> fire on a rooftop/hilltop or just behind a small bump.

It turns out that tanks exist mostly to kill themselves on map edges away from flags and infantry, and that the most wise thing to do with them is simply leave them at main or camp far from enemy lines unless u manage to kill atleast 8 infantrymen to make up for a tank+crew loss which rarely happens vs a good team.

3)It probably deserves a thread of its own, the Challenger 2 tank - Its supposed to a quality over quantity tank, better than T-72, better than Abrams (imo, dont flame). In PR, it looks badass, it sounds badass, but when it comes to performance its utter ****.
-It takes 5 seconds to start moving after a complete stop. Something no other tank has.
-Its wayyy too easy to 1 shot with a HAT (in PRT, 6/6 CR2's destroyed on Dragon fly were 1 shot) or disable after what it starts jumping like crazy and overall it's armor aint good.
-Its also very unstable on uneven terrain, starts shacking and jumping on small bumps n stuff.

4)Merkava - Shouldnt the turret be a strong point, covered by loads of armor plates, built for urban warfare in mind? Because ATM its the the main weakpoint of the tank (2 AP rounds to destroy).

5)T-72 - Imo its better than it should be, thermals, equal armor to modern tanks.. If u look at Burning Sands, Kashan and maybe Iron Eagle MEC has the advantage in armor. Tanks are equal in power, but their IFVs (BMP-3, and now BMP-2M) give them the advantage (Bradley sux, Warrior/Namer have no AT capabilities). "Nerfing" this tank's armor/AP capabilites would imo make it both more realistic as well as balance things out on the large faction vs faction scale.

6)T-90 - It has a ridicilous amount of 1 shot-kill weakpoints and nothing to reflect it's anti-anti-tank stuff like the Shtora thingy...

afaik the damage system for vehicles is in line for an overhaul

also, try to sound more like a feedback post and less like a rant post "rediculous" "its utter ****." "sux"
the best way to get your points accross is to write dispassionately

2)Tank's main advantage should be the distance they can engage stuff, because of engine limitations the max distance would be 1km at best.
Once again, because of engine limitations u cant fire on the move, making u an easier target.
Another thing is that there's nothing you can do about a guy/s going prone/crouch -> stand -> fire on a rooftop/hilltop or just behind a small bump.

these are things we cannot change....

It turns out that tanks exist mostly to kill themselves on map edges away from flags and infantry, and that the most wise thing to do with them is simply leave them at main or camp far from enemy lines unless u manage to kill atleast 8 infantrymen to make up for a tank+crew loss which rarely happens vs a good team.

Personally I bring my tanks right up to the front line, run in, attack, pull back, repair, rinse and repeat.

4)Merkava - Shouldnt the turret be a strong point, covered by loads of armor plates, built for urban warfare in mind? Because ATM its the the main weakpoint of the tank (2 AP rounds to destroy).

this is something that requires a source or MA.

5)T-72 - Imo its better than it should be, thermals, equal armor to modern tanks.. If u look at Burning Sands, Kashan and maybe Iron Eagle MEC has the advantage in armor. Tanks are equal in power, but their IFVs (BMP-3, and now BMP-2M) give them the advantage (Bradley sux, Warrior/Namer have no AT capabilities). "Nerfing" this tank's armor/AP capabilites would imo make it both more realistic as well as balance things out on the large faction vs faction scale.

the BMP-3 is a powerful vehicle, its only real downfall is that its driver lacks thermals. the warrior has no AT, which is why Brits get more tanks on burning sands than MEC do. the IDF merks are powerful vehicle on Ironeagle, superior to the MEC armour so I don't see the inbalance there, and the Bradley is capable of firing 2 tows in quick sucession, so I don't see the inbalance there either.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote: the BMP-3 is a powerful vehicle, its only real downfall is that its driver lacks thermals. the warrior has no AT, which is why Brits get more tanks on burning sands than MEC do. the IDF merks are powerful vehicle on Ironeagle, superior to the MEC armour so I don't see the inbalance there, and the Bradley is capable of firing 2 tows in quick sucession, so I don't see the inbalance there either.

Bradley has to stop to fire TOWs, is big, noisy and has a 2 min reload time on TOWs.
On Iron Eagle MEC gets loads of tanks capable of killin merks in 2 shots from any angle as well as BMPs and a Shturm-S.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote: these are things we cannot change....

Can change other things that have prolly been suggested already, like JDAM style ammo.. adding that beepbeep thingy when some1 aims at u with a HAT, slowing down missiles a bit etc etc.

Nebsif wrote:the Challenger 2 tank - Its supposed to a quality over quantity tank, better than T-72, better than Abrams (imo, dont flame). In PR, it looks badass, it sounds badass, but when it comes to performance its utter ****.
-It takes 5 seconds to start moving after a complete stop. Something no other tank has.
-Its wayyy too easy to 1 shot with a HAT (in PRT, 6/6 CR2's destroyed on Dragon fly were 1 shot) or disable after what it starts jumping like crazy and overall it's armor aint good.
-Its also very unstable on uneven terrain, starts shacking and jumping on small bumps n stuff.

As an infantry player, I approve of the Challenger 2's shittiness. It can be destroyed with three shots from the ZiS-3 (have done it once and seen it done once) and can be tracked with one shot

'Limeni[BiH wrote:;1551532']I dont know, it just seems that you are frustrated for some other reasons, first you want more realism and than you want beepbeep sounds, slower missiles...

Idk about other tanks, but T-90 has a thingy that warns when some1 aims at u with lasor guided something.

Could you make a list of laser guided weapons used against T-90 ingame?
Note: Laser range finders do not count.

Tbh, apart from material bugs and mystery challenger glitches, your post doesn't raise/address any PR specific problems or those are not problems, but your personal dislikes .

I am a Tank noob

But I just wanted to add that the Yamalia vehicle warfare is unbalanced due to the T-90s ATGM not being able to go through trees. This allows the Leopards to basically sit behind trees fire - and not get hit back.

Elektro wrote:I am a Tank noob

But I just wanted to add that the Yamalia vehicle warfare is unbalanced due to the T-90s ATGM not being able to go through trees. This allows the Leopards to basically sit behind trees fire - and not get hit back.

Or you could use AP?

There are some striking balance differences between some factions armors, and while it does add to the "A-Symmetrical" thinking you shouldn't argue there is no room for improvement. Some armor models have really weird material choices, and others have counterparts that are leap years ahead in terms of firepower/mobility/armor (the three natural aspects any tank design).

Aren't bombs laser guided? Why would a laser range finder not set of laser counter measures? IRL do they use a different kind of laser then those detected, or is that more for gameplay sake?

Zrix wrote:Or you could use AP?

Yes but as Nebsif said in his OP, the Leopard already has an advantedge in having a lot stronger armor when comparing it to the T-90. It only takes 2 shots for a Leopard to kill a T-90 and vice versa with a T-90 shooting a leopard with ATGMs loaded. So a T-90 is no match for a Leopard when it cant use its ATGMs.

what actually happens if you fire AGTMs through leafed branches IRL?

if its wireguided I guess it'll just go through, might get deflected by a branch, but I dunno.

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.

Another thing to decide on is tank smoke capabilities. It should either block IR or last 3-4 times longer. Right now it only lasts a short amount of time like IR blocking smoke...but doesn't block IR, kinda the worst of both worlds

One thing must be said: Tank Warfare in PR has one gigantic flaw

Survivability!



Especially when looking at Tanks like the Abrams and Merkava there should be practically no chance of killing the crew from a frontal shot. None.

In general it should be incredibly hard to make a Tank like the Abrams explode. At some time I read a report about a Challenger 2 in Iraq beeing hit by something like 30 RPGs(including some of the formidable RPG 29s!) and only having the driver beeing injured(i think it was losing a toe, but don't sue me on that).

That is not to say that a tank shlould not be able to be disabled, which is an entirely different matter, looking at western tanks especially.


Also the OP's point about the T72 beeing too powerful is if anything an understatement. The T72 is outdated. Really outdated. If anything it perhaps should be the only Tank that should be able to be penetrated/destoyed from the front in 1 shot.


There are many points to be made and the sad thing about this topic is that you can't properly source things because you can put down pretty much all the sources as propaganda. But looking the at results of Iraq and Lebanon and such there is definetly a lot wrong with the way tanks are handled in the current build.

There is so much floating around my head atm that I'm not sure my comment is coherent and logical enough to be understood, so sorry about that.

edit: jaymz point about smoke... i can't say more on the subject.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rudd;1551577']what actually happens if you fire AGTMs through leafed branches IRL?

if its wireguided I guess it'll just go through, might get deflected by a branch, but I dunno.[/quote]

It can get initiated by branches, wires can get cut, sight might lose the flare used for guidance in the tail of missile, laser beamriders might lose contact with laser beam etc. -> you fire only when the path is clear/almost clear if you want to be sure that missile reach where you want it to.

[quote="Murphy""]Aren't bombs laser guided? Why would a laser range finder not set of laser counter measures? IRL do they use a different kind of laser then those detected, or is that more for gameplay sake?[/quote]

First of all - Shtora equipped T-80U was unable to detect LRFs from western tanks(at least from some of them, and was able to detect LRF from T-84) at the Greece tank tender back in 1998. It might have been fixed since then, but might not.

2nd(and more important) - we do not have proper firing sequence procedures and having a warning each time somebody looks at you would be lame to say the least.

Also the OP's point about the T72 beeing too powerful is if anything an understatement. The T72 is outdated. Really outdated. If anything it perhaps should be the only Tank that should be able to be penetrated/destoyed from the front in 1 shot.

Not really, only few years older than Leo2 or M1.
The "stock" T-72 you see in game is a placeholder for up to date modification.

Going back to the BMP-3. This is the biggest issue I have against it right now: Its turret's mobility. It should only be able to go up to 60 degrees instead of the near 90 currently. I mentioned this before in a feedback/bug report to little or no response.

As a result there is no such thing as a height advantage and it has a ridiculously greater role as an anti air vehicle.

And why don't ATGMs atleast set off alarms for the tanks? They use lasers right?

And wait... what? A more modern T-72?! Wouldn't that just make it a T-90? The T-72 is a generation behind the Abrams and Leo2, but it did coexist with the Leo1.

-------

While on the subject.... pretty pretty please can we at least get to control whether or not we want to use the gun in an automated fashion on tanks that support it? I mean we do have the nice periscope now... just tie it to the gun!

Well, I think the T-72 in-game right now is the 72M model, as in modernized.

The BMP-3 is pretty much irrelevant to PR now, as from what I heard it's going to get completely phased-out by the BMP-2M when .96 is released.

ytman wrote:Going back to the BMP-3. This is the biggest issue I have against it right now: Its turret's mobility. It should only be able to go up to 60 degrees instead of the near 90 currently. I mentioned this before in a feedback/bug report to little or no response.

As a result there is no such thing as a height advantage and it has a ridiculously greater role as an anti air vehicle.

And why don't ATGMs atleast set off alarms for the tanks? They use lasers right?

And wait... what? A more modern T-72?! Wouldn't that just make it a T-90? The T-72 is a generation behind the Abrams and Leo2, but it did coexist with the Leo1.

-------

While on the subject.... pretty pretty please can we at least get to control whether or not we want to use the gun in an automated fashion on tanks that support it? I mean we do have the nice periscope now... just tie it to the gun!

the BMP3 has a elevation of 62 degrees ingame and RL, but possible it was wrong in a old version.

the T72 ingame is a placeholder for a upgraded T72. they are not iraqi T72s!

ytman wrote: And why don't ATGMs atleast set off alarms for the tanks? They use lasers right?

Beam-riding ones do, yes. But a tanks main gun uses a laser range finder anyway.

ytman wrote: And wait... what? A more modern T-72?! Wouldn't that just make it a T-90? The T-72 is a generation behind the Abrams and Leo2, but it did coexist with the Leo1.

ytman wrote: While on the subject.... pretty pretty please can we at least get to control whether or not we want to use the gun in an automated fashion on tanks that support it? I mean we do have the nice periscope now... just tie it to the gun!

You mean like a hunter/killer slew system? Not possible I'm afraid, we would have done it already if so.

And wait... what? A more modern T-72?! Wouldn't that just make it a T-90? The T-72 is a generation behind the Abrams and Leo2, but it did coexist with the Leo1.

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.

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.

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