Nades and game play

_DFA_Eagle · 10-20-2002, 06:18 AM

Something has to be done with these nuke nades everyone has in the game. A nade is more powerful than a tank shell when I am shooting someone. Takes a few shots with tank to kill a guy but hell throw a nade and you can take him out and 4 others. Another thing is that I have been playing this game since the first demo ever came out and went out and bought the game when it first hit the stores. Dont get me wrong its a great game but now its kinda getting boring doing the same things over and over on the maps. We need some new maps or enhance the ones we have because if not this game will be like the other ones I have and collect dust. Only game I dont get bored with is WW2 online atleast there is more to do. Ok Im done pissing and moaning and bithcing.

PxR|GrimJack · 10-20-2002, 06:23 AM

you ever messed with a real nade? (no I'm not flaming you, just asking) I had to handle them on the range and let me tell ya...they will scare you sh*tless.......taking out 4 guys is NOT unheard of

as for their use against armor...I've said it before....ANY explosive UNDER a tank will damage it......3 or 4 nades? yeah they could destroy a tank easy...not destroy as in "blow it to pieces" like the game, but make it un-useable

also....nades in the sides of a tank run the HUGE HUGE risk of knocking a tread loose

should they be tweaked a bit? maybe....maybe not....I'm not having any probs with them, but some ppl are

as long as its a real problem & not someone just wanteding to have a "super tank" that cant be stopped....maybe DICE should look at it, but as it sits I dont see the need

_DFA_Eagle · 10-20-2002, 06:31 AM

I feel better now maybe I need a break from the game playing it too much gets the best of me..oh well just a game

CottonMouth · 10-20-2002, 07:17 AM

I say the nades in game are just fine... note... if you go prone when a nade is near... you have a better chance of survival... it actually does kinda work like a real nade...

I've been killed by greneades that I thought were to far away to kill me and I've thrown grenades that I thought should kill people... I like the way they work in a kind of random fashion... sometimes you get a sweet toss... and sometimes you get a bad bounce and kill your teammates... either way they work and they're fun as all get out.... I think they kinda work like grenades worked back in 1942... now that's sweet... don't change a thing if you ask me....

"Oh yeah drugs...you gotta have drugs..."

PzGr. Metzger · 10-20-2002, 07:53 AM

Nades killing tanks is legit? Are you crazy man? It takes a directed/shaped charged to pierce armor on tanks. Grens are anti-personel not anti-tank. As is in the game it is really a bunch of sheep sh!t that you can kill a tank with nades. The explosion of a nade is small, the death dealt is from the fragmentation not the concussion.

If they were to put a "sweet spot" on the tanks, ie the engine cover, then it would be a little fairer to the tankers. I have been in a Tiger going toe to toe with a T-34 only to be killed with a nade thrown from joe blow 100 feet away from me. Not gonna start a tank armor spec war here but c'mon folks. The nades need to be toned down against armor.

[Link] · 10-20-2002, 08:31 AM

There is armor on a tank yes, but tanks still have vulnerabilities, especially in 1942, and I dont think under a tank would be as Armored underneath as the sides and top due to un-needed wieght, a Grenade very well could hurt the tank if it was under it, or near the tracks. A fragment grenade also throws fragments out all around and The tank shells don't which is why your grenades took out more men then a tank shell.

Dick_Justice · 10-20-2002, 09:29 AM

Why don´t we just say, grenades should do less damage against tanks, exept if you hit underneath, where the armour is weakest. I thinks that sounds fair.

SS [FIN] · 10-20-2002, 12:34 PM

Amen.

Masked Muffin · 10-20-2002, 02:10 PM

anyone ever shot a shotgun into 3 inch thick steel?

Same as a grenade against tanks

PxR|GrimJack · 10-20-2002, 03:58 PM

obviously you didnt read what I said.....yes UNDER the tank is the sweet spot for nades versus tank...because there was little to no armor there

and if you think nades cant hurt a tank do us all a favor & take the time to look up the Battle of Budapest......molotov cocktails..homemade gas grenades were responsible for hundreds of tanks being destroyed

btw, dont bother saying they caused enough heat to cook off the ammo inside....the amount of gas in a bottle cant even heat up the layers of armor on the front & sides of a tank...as you are SO quick to point out, its THICK metal

but they can (and repeatedly DID) blow the tracks off leaving it helpless...and as I said in a prior thread, stopping the tank & leaving the gun intact would be a cool effect.........but I dont know how bad it would be to program it

now one fast lesson in explosions

#1 they blow UP..as someone said..lay down, the explosion will go over your head for the most part

#2 ANY explosive has greater force when compressed....say like having several tons of TANK parked on it...the tank being ON the grenade actually makes it stronger, due to the compression factor

#3 the armor under a tank is almost non-existant, this is why in the military ppl are taught to shoot as they crest hills & the belly is exposed

now add up the factors from #1, #2, and #3....can 3 or 4 nades take out a tank?

according to the US military, yes......take the time to LOOK IT UP...instead of spouting your Hollywood war film crap

personally Dick, if there has to be a change to nades, what you're saying sounds a lot better than what the various kiddys that want a super suit of armor that cant be stopped ....its called game balance, look into it huh?

Stalker · 10-20-2002, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PxR|GrimJack

now one fast lesson in explosions

#1 they blow UP..as someone said..lay down, the explosion will go over your head for the most part

#2 ANY explosive has greater force when compressed....say like having several tons of TANK parked on it...the tank being ON the grenade actually makes it stronger, due to the compression factor

#3 the armor under a tank is almost non-existant, this is why in the military ppl are taught to shoot as they crest hills & the belly is exposed

now add up the factors from #1, #2, and #3....can 3 or 4 nades take out a tank?

according to the US military, yes......take the time to LOOK IT UP...instead of spouting your Hollywood war film crap

Can I get an Amen....

The armour under the engine section of a tank is not too thick.... they saved alot of wieght by having the plating NOT carry on under the tank... I have never tried to blow up a tank with grenades, but I can see them doing enough damage to immobilize the tank, there fore in BF blowing it up as they don't immobilize vehicles.

[edit]Just went and did some research on the sherman for an example.... on the hull of the Sherman tank the underside had a whopping 13mm of armour. That works out to 17/32 of an inch.... Trust me... a nade can blow through that with NO problem

ARMOR PROTECTION
Bottom
Hull 13mm@0°

[/edit]

PxR|GrimJack · 10-20-2002, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stalker

[edit]Just went and did some research on the sherman for an example.... on the hull of the Sherman tank the underside had a whopping 13mm of armour. That works out to 17/32 of an inch.... Trust me... a nade can blow through that with NO problem

ARMOR PROTECTION
Bottom
Hull 13mm@0°

[/edit]

Thanks for the real numbers.....for those of you who cant read past Hollywoods scripts, that means the armor under it was a fraction over 1/2" with 0 angle of deflection. Angle of deflection is what made shooting the front armor of a tank so rough...the armor was angled to shunt the force of the hit off, rather than absorb it.....with no deflection, the 1/2" had to withstand not only the force of the nade itself, but the compression force AND the weight of the entire tank flexing as it exploded...thats a LOT of stress to put on that thin a sheet

this is why the rear armor is easier to break, its FLAT (0 angle), it takes the full impact, rather than making it bounce off

now...while I completely realize the whiney babys that want a super tank that cant be stopped except by multiple direct hits from the main batteries on the battleship wont ever agree that the almighty GOD of the battle field the tank could POSSIBLY be hurt by a mere infantry man......the numbers that Stalker came up with make it plain its NOT like "shooting a shotgun into a 3" think plate of steel"

_DFA_Eagle · 10-20-2002, 06:22 PM

Guess I opened a can of worms on this topic. The main thing I was getting frustrated at was the effectivness of the tank shells on infantry. I know the shells are a mix of AP and HE but when I would shoot a shell and hit the guy and he keeps running or coming at me and takes me another shot to kill him thats what I was trying to say. One shot from a tank no matter how close to a guy is should kill him like the nuke nades do.

PxR|GrimJack · 10-20-2002, 06:53 PM

my only guess to that point is just that...a guess.......

how far out are you hitting them? maybe some kind of an "arming distance" on the tank rounds? (there is in real life)

the other chance is maybe something to do with the hit boxes?...cause a direct hit from a tanks main would vaporize a body just from impact, let alone explosion

as for a mix of HE & AP....those are 2 seperate rounds loaded as called for....so maybe your crew has HE loaded, you shoot the 1st time & they figure it out & load AP for the 2nd?

_DFA_Eagle · 10-20-2002, 07:24 PM

On this game there is no seperate loading for AP or HE its all one type of shell and I think the programmers made it a mix of each. Unlike WW2 you can change what type you want to use. Oh well its just a game and every game has its good points and bad and so far this game has alot of good points that I can see.

PxR|GrimJack · 10-20-2002, 07:30 PM

yep, I was j/k about the 2nd shell being AP......

I dont have a clue why tank rounds arent as effective against infantry (I get killed enough by the things) but then tankers didnt fire the mains at infantry I dont think, thats what the coaxil MG was for..........I honestly do think they heat a LITTLE bit to fast.......but I hate ppl that hold the trigger & spray to.....so its a trade off

Pickle_Puss · 10-21-2002, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PxR|GrimJack

but they can (and repeatedly DID) blow the tracks off leaving it helpless...and as I said in a prior thread, stopping the tank & leaving the gun intact would be a cool effect.........but I dont know how bad it would be to program it

aye, I remember reading an interview with someone at DICe, sayin that the vehicles dont have a separte damage system, i.e. no blown tires, immobilized tanks. I suppose that means that it isnt possible with the engine.

Kassel · 10-21-2002, 04:52 AM

It is probably Possible engine wise... yet very very very very very hard and cumbersome work...

Morat · 10-21-2002, 12:13 PM

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.

Stalker · 10-21-2002, 02:50 PM

I agree with you on alot of what you say..... grenades are not meant to be a tank stopper.... and I think they need to decrease the amount of damage that the nades do to tanks..... but nothing else. IMHO they are perfect the way they are now...... just make the tanks harder to kill with nades,but not impervious to them.

10-20-2002, 06:18 AM	#1 (permalink)
_DFA_Eagle Private 1st Class Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Green Bay, WI USA Posts: 114	Nades and game play Something has to be done with these nuke nades everyone has in the game. A nade is more powerful than a tank shell when I am shooting someone. Takes a few shots with tank to kill a guy but hell throw a nade and you can take him out and 4 others. Another thing is that I have been playing this game since the first demo ever came out and went out and bought the game when it first hit the stores. Dont get me wrong its a great game but now its kinda getting boring doing the same things over and over on the maps. We need some new maps or enhance the ones we have because if not this game will be like the other ones I have and collect dust. Only game I dont get bored with is WW2 online atleast there is more to do. Ok Im done pissing and moaning and bithcing.

10-20-2002, 06:23 AM	#2 (permalink)
PxR\|GrimJack Sergeant Major Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 647	you ever messed with a real nade? (no I'm not flaming you, just asking) I had to handle them on the range and let me tell ya...they will scare you sh*tless.......taking out 4 guys is NOT unheard of as for their use against armor...I've said it before....ANY explosive UNDER a tank will damage it......3 or 4 nades? yeah they could destroy a tank easy...not destroy as in "blow it to pieces" like the game, but make it un-useable also....nades in the sides of a tank run the HUGE HUGE risk of knocking a tread loose should they be tweaked a bit? maybe....maybe not....I'm not having any probs with them, but some ppl are as long as its a real problem & not someone just wanteding to have a "super tank" that cant be stopped....maybe DICE should look at it, but as it sits I dont see the need __________________

10-20-2002, 07:17 AM	#4 (permalink)
CottonMouth Private Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Anchorage, AK Posts: 34	I say the nades in game are just fine... note... if you go prone when a nade is near... you have a better chance of survival... it actually does kinda work like a real nade... I've been killed by greneades that I thought were to far away to kill me and I've thrown grenades that I thought should kill people... I like the way they work in a kind of random fashion... sometimes you get a sweet toss... and sometimes you get a bad bounce and kill your teammates... either way they work and they're fun as all get out.... I think they kinda work like grenades worked back in 1942... now that's sweet... don't change a thing if you ask me.... "Oh yeah drugs...you gotta have drugs..." __________________ KNBL-Cotton Mouth #kannibale

10-20-2002, 07:53 AM	#5 (permalink)
PzGr. Metzger Private Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 78	Nades killing tanks is legit? Are you crazy man? It takes a directed/shaped charged to pierce armor on tanks. Grens are anti-personel not anti-tank. As is in the game it is really a bunch of sheep sh!t that you can kill a tank with nades. The explosion of a nade is small, the death dealt is from the fragmentation not the concussion. If they were to put a "sweet spot" on the tanks, ie the engine cover, then it would be a little fairer to the tankers. I have been in a Tiger going toe to toe with a T-34 only to be killed with a nade thrown from joe blow 100 feet away from me. Not gonna start a tank armor spec war here but c'mon folks. The nades need to be toned down against armor. __________________ There is no pain, only dishonor.

10-20-2002, 09:29 AM	#7 (permalink)
Dick_Justice Major Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Marl, Germany Posts: 3,350	Why don´t we just say, grenades should do less damage against tanks, exept if you hit underneath, where the armour is weakest. I thinks that sounds fair. __________________ Plays BF 2 in Europe under the name of \"Erich_Felsner\"

10-20-2002, 06:31 AM	#3 (permalink)
_DFA_Eagle Private 1st Class Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Green Bay, WI USA Posts: 114	I feel better now maybe I need a break from the game playing it too much gets the best of me..oh well just a game

10-20-2002, 08:31 AM	#6 (permalink)
[Link] Private Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 55	There is armor on a tank yes, but tanks still have vulnerabilities, especially in 1942, and I dont think under a tank would be as Armored underneath as the sides and top due to un-needed wieght, a Grenade very well could hurt the tank if it was under it, or near the tracks. A fragment grenade also throws fragments out all around and The tank shells don't which is why your grenades took out more men then a tank shell.

10-20-2002, 12:34 PM	#8 (permalink)
SS [FIN] First Lieutenant Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 1,666	Amen.

10-20-2002, 02:10 PM	#9 (permalink)
Masked Muffin Private Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 15	anyone ever shot a shotgun into 3 inch thick steel? Same as a grenade against tanks

10-20-2002, 03:58 PM	#10 (permalink)
PxR\|GrimJack Sergeant Major Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 647	obviously you didnt read what I said.....yes UNDER the tank is the sweet spot for nades versus tank...because there was little to no armor there and if you think nades cant hurt a tank do us all a favor & take the time to look up the Battle of Budapest......molotov cocktails..homemade gas grenades were responsible for hundreds of tanks being destroyed btw, dont bother saying they caused enough heat to cook off the ammo inside....the amount of gas in a bottle cant even heat up the layers of armor on the front & sides of a tank...as you are SO quick to point out, its THICK metal but they can (and repeatedly DID) blow the tracks off leaving it helpless...and as I said in a prior thread, stopping the tank & leaving the gun intact would be a cool effect.........but I dont know how bad it would be to program it now one fast lesson in explosions #1 they blow UP..as someone said..lay down, the explosion will go over your head for the most part #2 ANY explosive has greater force when compressed....say like having several tons of TANK parked on it...the tank being ON the grenade actually makes it stronger, due to the compression factor #3 the armor under a tank is almost non-existant, this is why in the military ppl are taught to shoot as they crest hills & the belly is exposed now add up the factors from #1, #2, and #3....can 3 or 4 nades take out a tank? according to the US military, yes......take the time to LOOK IT UP...instead of spouting your Hollywood war film crap personally Dick, if there has to be a change to nades, what you're saying sounds a lot better than what the various kiddys that want a super suit of armor that cant be stopped ....its called game balance, look into it huh? __________________

10-20-2002, 06:22 PM	#13 (permalink)
_DFA_Eagle Private 1st Class Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Green Bay, WI USA Posts: 114	Guess I opened a can of worms on this topic. The main thing I was getting frustrated at was the effectivness of the tank shells on infantry. I know the shells are a mix of AP and HE but when I would shoot a shell and hit the guy and he keeps running or coming at me and takes me another shot to kill him thats what I was trying to say. One shot from a tank no matter how close to a guy is should kill him like the nuke nades do.

10-20-2002, 06:53 PM	#14 (permalink)
PxR\|GrimJack Sergeant Major Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 647	my only guess to that point is just that...a guess....... how far out are you hitting them? maybe some kind of an "arming distance" on the tank rounds? (there is in real life) the other chance is maybe something to do with the hit boxes?...cause a direct hit from a tanks main would vaporize a body just from impact, let alone explosion as for a mix of HE & AP....those are 2 seperate rounds loaded as called for....so maybe your crew has HE loaded, you shoot the 1st time & they figure it out & load AP for the 2nd? __________________

10-20-2002, 07:24 PM	#15 (permalink)
_DFA_Eagle Private 1st Class Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Green Bay, WI USA Posts: 114	On this game there is no seperate loading for AP or HE its all one type of shell and I think the programmers made it a mix of each. Unlike WW2 you can change what type you want to use. Oh well its just a game and every game has its good points and bad and so far this game has alot of good points that I can see.

10-20-2002, 07:30 PM	#16 (permalink)
PxR\|GrimJack Sergeant Major Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 647	yep, I was j/k about the 2nd shell being AP...... I dont have a clue why tank rounds arent as effective against infantry (I get killed enough by the things) but then tankers didnt fire the mains at infantry I dont think, thats what the coaxil MG was for..........I honestly do think they heat a LITTLE bit to fast.......but I hate ppl that hold the trigger & spray to.....so its a trade off __________________

10-21-2002, 04:52 AM	#18 (permalink)
Kassel Master Warrant Officer Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 1,291	It is probably Possible engine wise... yet very very very very very hard and cumbersome work...

10-21-2002, 02:50 PM	#20 (permalink)
Stalker Corporal Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Posts: 199	I agree with you on alot of what you say..... grenades are not meant to be a tank stopper.... and I think they need to decrease the amount of damage that the nades do to tanks..... but nothing else. IMHO they are perfect the way they are now...... just make the tanks harder to kill with nades,but not impervious to them.