Quote:
|
....its called game balance, look into it huh?
|
I have to take issue with you on your understanding of game balance. In the real life conflicts that have been mentioned there were hundreds of tanks, and lucky grenade throws taking the tracks off some or blowing them from underneath probably wouldn't figure largely in the outcome.
In the game, Dice's stated game balance objective was a rock/paper/scissors approach. You come at me in a destroyer, I attack you with a torpedo plane. You attack your torpeo plane with a fighter, I attack your fighter with an AA gun etc etc. Each weapon in the game has it's achilles heel. For tanks, the achilles heel as far as infantry is concerned is
supposed to be the AT and engineer classes, which are specifically designed with anti-tank capability. However, because grenades do so much damage to tanks (even if not under them or in the tracks) they are actually very vulnerable to every single infantry class, although paradoxically not engineers as they have no grenades. According to Dice's own balancing scheme you should have to spawn as an AT or engineer class to take out a tank, which will then expose your team to infantry assault. This is currently not the case.
Also, on a game map there may be only 1 powerful tank per side. Do you think it's balanced when that unit has to hang back from frontal assault and occupation of a base because it can be killed in seconds by just 2 infantrymen of any class? Is it balanced that the driver/gunner of a Sherman or Panzer IV can do more damage to an opposing tank by getting out and throwing grenades at it than by using his main gun?
I'm not for one minute claiming that tanks should be unstoppable slaughter-machines, but in their current form they're very weak and not easily used in their proper role. I'm guessing Dice/EA are in agreement with the majority of players on this, as they have already announced that this will be addressed in the 1.2 patch.