Nades and game play

[PxR|GrimJack]

thanks, no harm no foul sounds good........

the sigs are made by one of our teammates....does KILLER work...custom for each of our personalities

as for servers with teamwork.....OTHER than my teammates? its hard to find...I wish I knew where to look

[WoollyMittens]

Originally Posted by Morat

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?

BS, any shell (or two) lobbed under the tail of any tank will detonate it on the spot.
You just lack wang and go for a full frontal, in shich case you're too stupid to live anyway.

[Thunderbuttocks]

I think the balance is quite good in BF. I see in documentaries that troops usually walk beside tanks for protection but obviously that rarely because A. the tanks never wait and B. tanks are magnets to grenades. But in this game, if you use the tanks to shoot from a distance and let the infantry does the rest,, like capturing the flags (depending on the spawn time of course), you should be fairly safe in a lot of the maps. But coordination is a big problem in this game, not neccessary due to ppls unwillingness. In this game, without vocal communication, it's just tough, especially without a overall commander.

[Morat]

You just lack wang and go for a full frontal, in shich case you're too stupid to live anyway

I think I said in a later quote that I do hang back and use the gun from range if I have no support. I'm not daft.

I'm also not concerned in the slightest about what grenades do to tanks in the real world. In the real world you can't land a spitfire on the roof of a hut or launch tanks into orbit with AA guns. All I'm concerned about is game balance, and whether or not it's balanced that tanks are vulnerable to all the infantry classes and not just the ones designed to be anti-tank. I don't believe that it is.

Imagine 1942 was set 1,000 years in the future with all the same units, except the tanks hovered and had no tracks, but were still vulnerable to all infantry instead of just the specific AT units. No real life comparison is possible. Is it balanced?

Again, I'm not saying that tanks should be all powerful and able to roll into an enemy base and sit there unopposable for hours. All I'm asking is that to dislodge that tank the enemy needs some units that are the designed classes for the job, AT and engineer. That would force the team to have a unit balance, rather than being able to have the dual advantage of being assault class with a good anti-infantry SMG and strong anti-tank ability. This would add a stronger logistical element to the game, as you would know your enemy's defensive weakness (whether to hit with tanks or infantry) by knowing the makeup of their classes. As it stands a team need have no defensive weakness simply by spawning as virtually all assault class. Which IMO is silly.

The real world has nothing to do with this debate. 1942 is not a "real world" game. It's a fantasy game with a WWII look and feel. The only thing that matters is whether or not the units balance well.

Any Tribes 2 players out there will know that when a tank rolls up in that game you'd better be the right class to deal with it. It adds something to the game. The tank is a unit to be feared by light infantry. It can't do a lot on its own, but it can lay waste, but if it's unsupported and someone changes to Juggernaut with a mortar that tank had better run or be good with the gun. It plays in a more balanced way IMO.

[Dr Feelgood]

Precisely Morat, a point well made.

I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again - the tank is the only unit in the game that can easily be destroyed by almost ANY other unit. When a tank is in it's environment you can knock it out with: Planes/Bombs/Jeeps/Nades/Shells/AA Fire/Mines/Exp Packs/Ship Guns/DefGuns/Water(stretching things a bit I know).

Now contrast that with, say, a plane. When a plane is in it's environment (the air - duh!), how many of those apply? 2? 3? Yet isn't the plane more deadly thanks to it's speed, maneuverability and firepower? And when you see a plane how many of you throw a grenade at it? Or do you rather rush to the nearest AA gun and let rip? I presume what most of you would do is run to the AA gun - i.e. you use the appropriate Rock/Paper/Scissors weapon like Morat suggested.

The tank, whilst being deadly in the right hands, is far too vulnerable to infantry attack. Don't forget it is easy to hide from a tank, thanks to the Driver's limited field of view. Then you simply lob nades from behind and end of tank. Whilst I agree totally that only fools rush in (isn't that a song), if you saw a Sherman in real life how many of you would try and take it on with nades? I don't want realism, I want balance. Let the nades disable a tank so the guys inside have to get out or be shrecked, or give us the opportunity to kill the enemy inside.

A plane in the right hands can survive for an entire round, taking out any enemy guys trying to shoot him down, and even bombing out the AA before the enemy can use it. You can even land far away from the action, repair (if you are an engineer), and quickly get back into the action again. Does this also apply to the tank?

[PzGr. Metzger]

Excellent point feelgood and morat

[Drach]

Planes have serious limitations that the tanks dont have. can you run down opposing enemy, cut off choke points, "effectively" take over a spawn posistion? While we are at it slow down the armor regen on repair ramps so tanks cant sit on em and mow down the enemy the second they spawn. about all planes really accomplish currently is they keep the morons in one spot for the enemy to kill. people will camp planes for an entire game. Half of em not knowing a thing about flying (me included i gave up on flying way back) Planes, Tanks, Various infantry kits are all effective if used properly. The problem is in the users hands.

What you all want is a uber weapon that can sit in a spot and kill at will. Argue what you want but thats what you want. Current game play is fine.
Leave Game balancing alone. every time a game changes balance, it screws things up. the game is fun now as a tank driver or infantry. if tanks are that ineffective why are they the first vehicle everyone runs to (besides planes). why dont we see massive parking lots of unused tanks?

[Kalidor]

It's a question of balance! wooo! Imagine a situation; one tanker against 2 infantry. Tank is most probably toast if it's a close situation and good infantrymen. Add teamwork, and one assault-kit infantryman to the tank. The enemy will be highly limited in it's movement by the tanks main gun and coax, so the odds sway to the tanker and lone infantryman. Tanks were never meant to be used alone in the way they are today on most servers. A tank IS vulnerable to lots of different weapons, both in the real world and in the game. If people used them as they (probably) were meant to be used they'd be much more effective. Use SUPPORT! Easy way is to have your friend on the mounted MG, and let jump off quick as hell when the situation turns hostile.

The tanks-nade problem promotes teamwork!

In the real world you can't land a spitfire on the roof of a hut or launch tanks into orbit with AA guns.

Your standard military AA-gun is a 20-40mm cannon firing HE-rounds, and they are more than capable of destroying a tank in the class of a Sherman. There are many historical examples of AA-guns lowered to be Anti-armourprotection. The swedish army for example used the same cannon for their tanks as in their AA-defense, only turned upside down.

[Morat]

Blimey. Here we go.

Planes have serious limitations that the tanks dont have. can you run down opposing enemy, cut off choke points

To the first, yes. I can run down an enemy in a plane and have done so on many occasions. To the second, a plane is well able to close off a choke point against slow moving armour and can even give jeeps and APCs a hard time because they're vulnerable to the MG. A plane might not cut off a choke point on its own, but it can make your life extremely hard, that I guarantee. I haven't even mentioned the benefit of visible range that a pilot has.

What you all want is a uber weapon that can sit in a spot and kill at will. Argue what you want but thats what you want.

I've said many times that isn't what I want, as have others. Believe me, I know my own mind well enough to say what I mean thank you.

The tanks-nade problem promotes teamwork

The tanks-nades problem promotes people being able to be assault class full-time instead of using the other classes at all. How is that promoting teamwork?

Your standard military AA-gun is a 20-40mm cannon firing HE-rounds, and they are more than capable of destroying a tank in the class of a Sherman. There are many historical examples of AA-guns lowered to be Anti-armourprotection. The swedish army for example used the same cannon for their tanks as in their AA-defense, only turned upside down.

Sorry, you've misunderstood me. This game has a "feature" where if you drive a tank onto an AA gun it will be catapulted into the air quite a long way. There are some screenies of it on the screenshots forum. Quite funny.

[Kalidor]

The tanks-nades problem promotes people being able to be assault class full-time instead of using the other classes at all. How is that promoting teamwork?

The problem of tanks being vulnerable to infantry(in general) forces them to cooperate with infantry.

80% of the tank-kills made by infantry is most probably because someone found a tank and drove it straight into the nearest enemy flagpoint full of enemies, thinking the armour and cannon would make him rule them all.

There are a few problems with the classes. Just as it is much easier to learn how to use a tank than an airplane, it's much easier to learn how to play as assault than as engineer. A skilled engineer is extremely lethal to a tank, where the odds in a close situation actually are on the engineers side. The Anti-armour class is also not the easiest one to learn how to use effectively. You have to be sneaky and find openings for a good shot, all the while avoiding enemy infantry. Most people just lob a rocket in the direction of a tank and stand bewildered as the tank returns fire.

The problem with the classes is also that a tank-driver doesn't feel "fear" when spotting an anti-armour guy next to his tank. He knows that if he just can get his frontal armour against the soldier he can take several hits without losing that much health, whilst hammering the poor sod with shells. There are too many newbie-soldiers who use the rocketlauncher as an assault gun.

People can play as assault an entire game, but if they meet a team who uses a coordinated(more or less) assault they'll be toast, if they don't start mixing their team again.

[Drach]

Thats just it tho by changing grenades thats what your going to get, an uber assault vehicle. I'll say it again, If you use the tank properly the nades arent a problem. nades are only a problem if you find yourself in tight quarters. if you put your tank in that posistion you deserve to get it blown up. if you make it so grenades do little damage to tanks and you've created a monster. Argue what ever you like but you want it to be extremely difficult to kill a tank. Right now it is difficult to kill a tank if used properly.

Planes Cannot HOLD a choke point. they can slow down an advance. they can be annoying, they can destroy tanks easily if the pilot is decent, but they arent going to HOLD that point for any length of time. You plan on holding choke points with planes and your plan is going to come crashing down. they will help hold a choke point and they will slow an advance but thats it. its extremely rare for a pilot to be able to Run people down. if your that good at flying a plane i'd suggest sticking to them instead of tanks.

[Twinkletoes]

Had a good game last night on the Tobruk map (no planes, no plane campers ) I was on the allies, and the tankers on my team all sat back behind the allied front line, and blasted the oncoming axis armour and infantry from there. AT and assault fended off the stragglers, and eng's fixed the tanks. NO ONE tried to attack the axis base, which is always a losing proposition, unless you can contain every single guy.

Using this strategy we won 3 games in a row (then the map changed and I got booted), and I don't think any tanks got 'naded.

[Morat]

its extremely rare for a pilot to be able to Run people down

It's reasonably easy in El Alamein .

nades are only a problem if you find yourself in tight quarters. if you put your tank in that posistion you deserve to get it blown up

This is a game played on reasonably small maps, you can find yourself in a tight position virtually anywhere and those grenades can be thrown a long way.

Argue what ever you like but you want it to be extremely difficult to kill a tank

I want it to be extremely difficult for a medic or assault class to kill a tank. Perhaps 3 assault guys together should be able to waste one very easily, and AT and engineer should likewise make easy meat of tanks on their own as they do now. You can disbelieve me all you want, this is how I personally would like the game to play.

[Dr Feelgood]

Originally Posted by Drach

What you all want is a uber weapon that can sit in a spot and kill at will.

No, what I want is a tank that cannot be taken out by a single medic hiding behind a hill.

Originally Posted by Drach

Planes Cannot HOLD a choke point. they can slow down an advance. they can be annoying, they can destroy tanks.

So you are contradicting your own point by saying that tanks cannot hold a choke point. Tanks don't even need a plane to blow them up, 3 grenades will do!

Originally Posted by Drach

nades are only a problem if you find yourself in tight quarters.

No, nades can be a problem in El Alamein where you are in the wild, open wilderness with that same medic tossing grenades from behind a hill again. I agree that you should NEVER take a tank into the midst of a group of infantry, mainly because they might be luring you into an AT trap. I know this isn't totally true life, but in Saving Private Ryan, at the end with the Tiger, how many guys blew up that Tiger with 3 grenades? However, didn't they disable it instead? And if grenades are as powerful as some people would make us believe, why didn't that lump of TNT (high explosive as opposed to the grenades anti-personnel charge) destroy the tank? Why didn't they stick 3 grenades in a sock and blow the thing up completely?

I know SPR is only a film, but there is a good deal of technical accuracy in it. We don't want super killing machines, we want the tank to be a more accurate reflection of the real thing and provide the challenge of trying to destroy it. I honestly don't fear the tanks, I can blow them up with grenades. I do however fear the planes, which is the point I was making before.

[Morat]

What you all want is a uber weapon that can sit in a spot and kill at will.

IMHO this is what the assault class currently is, and it needs changing. I guess you like playing this one-man army and don't want it messed with.

Besides which, if the tank is made an uber weapon it doesn't just benefit my team, the enemy team gets that uber weapon too and I have to go up against it. Why would I ever want that? Rock/scissors/paper remember.

[Drach]

How am I contradicting my own point? I dont have problems holding choke points with a tank. at least not from grenades. and no way in hell do i worry about infantry on El Alamein. if you keep moving that grenade doesnt bother you. If you didnt stop and sit there that medic wouldnt get you from behind that hill. you only have problems with grenades if you do 2 things:

1. you stop moving and sit there (#1 problem)

2. you enter a tight area with no place to move.

Mobility!!!! use it!!!

bottom line is tanks aren't being used properly. Tactics are the name of the game. play to a strength and avoid points of weakness. dont change the game for a players deficiences. change the player!

[Kalidor]

No, nades can be a problem in El Alamein where you are in the wild, open wilderness with that same medic tossing grenades from behind a hill again.

Granted, the medic might deal damage to the tank but if the commander is any good he'd either not be there in the first place, or he'd quickly pull himself out and give himself some range to the poor medic with 0 grenades left. Tanks NEED close quarters support from infantry to deal with threats like that. In real life there are 6 soldiers in the rear compartment with open hatches; they are the tanks protection against enemy infantry. The cannon doesn't even work below 30 meters because of arming distance.

[Dick_Justice]

Yes, making the grenades weaker against tanks (not underneath though) wouldn´t turn them into an "Übermonster". To compensate that one should increase the bazooka damage. Tanks can easyliy be taken out by AT, esecially in ruined citys. But momentariliy very few people play the AT or Enginner because it´s nearly just as easy to destroy a tank with fraggreandes what obviously should be the AT nad Engineers job. And then you still have you´re assaultrifle to take out infanty. IMO weakning the grenades would rather support teamplay, than destroy it, because it would be imperativ to have tank protection.

[Dr Feelgood]

Drach: I am not starting a running argument with you mate, and neither do I stay still in a tank. The grenade issue can be illustrated by this simple case, where I believe I do everything correctly, but still lose to single guy with a grenade.

Imagine I am an Allied guy in El Alamein, in a tank by the south flag. I see the flag is axis, but the area looks clear. When I arrive at the flag however I hear the clang of grenades against my tank. So should I:

1: Get out my tank to kill the guy, only to be killed in the blast from a grenade, and he gets my tank. I could also be killed by a sniper covering the guy.

2: Make space between myself and him. Given the environment around that flag I cant get far enough into the open with moving away from the contention zone, meaning more axis guys could spawn at the flag. However, according to your rules I am keeping mobile. I could move away and wait, but the guy would surely be clever enough to stay hidden and wait for backup, all the while holding the flag.

3: Stay still and hope I spot him showing his face.

If I end up with my back to that guy then I am a dead man. Now if he was an AT guy I would just curse my luck, but he is probably just Assault or a Medic.

Now, you can think of a dozen other scenarios like this, but the end result is that my tank against a single guy (or two) is no match. Now is that balance?

Don't get me wrong, I use tanks all the time, I enjoy them and it is not unknown for me to kill half the team before I eventually succumb. I am not saying make the tanks indestructable, I just want that feeling of fear when you see an AT guy, not being scared of every single infantryman you see. When everyone gets better and better at playing as infantry, the tanks will become almost obselete.

[Kalidor]

Originally Posted by Dick_Justice

IMO weakning the grenades would rather support teamplay, than destroy it, because it would be imperativ to have tank protection.

True, that would make a more fun game...

/me thinks some more

However, it could move the game even further away from infantry-based combat toward vehicle-combat. With the restricted amount of players on each server and team there can only be a certain amount of players with different kits. If they have to work together to counter the "paper-rock-scissor"-effects (at least one Assault with each AT to counter all groundthreats) people will be more likely to begin camping for vehicles as they are doing with planes right now (for perhaps not the same reasons). It's more fun to be on the top of the foodchain looking d