How Long Should MBTs take to be Destroyed?

[Soothsayer]

Vehicleside is what I'm interested in playing. How much does your rocket launcher cost?

[FPClark]

Originally Posted by DerFurst

You're missing the point though. In BF3, tanks only needed two rockets to destroy. Considering the scale of this game, more people will be firing at you, and each death sets you back quite far. Dying quicker in a game where it takes longer to get back into the action is terrible design.

More people may be shooting at you but they will also have more people shooting at them. In BF3 there is at max 8 total tanks in the game. Here there will be no less than 30 per side at a given time.

[Saintlycow]

I'd say 4-6 tanks shots (depends on customization) and about 7 AI rockets.
This way, a good HA can take a tank down by himself, It just takes skill.


On terms of locational damage, the HA rocket should be a 3 hit kill from behind (barring extra armour)

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Phellix

MAX's can't go outside? News to me. Those E3 vods lied!

on a serious note, those two can't be compared, at all.

Why not? Let's compare a one-man tank with an AV/AI MAX.

They both require resources to pull. Check.
They both are deadly against both infantry and vehicles. Check.
They both are most susceptible to AV weaponry. Check.
They both require only one man to bring their AV/AI killing to bear. Check.
They both are vulnerable to air-to-ground attacks.

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time seeing how they're vastly different. Wait, I've got one:

Tanks have treads or hover; MAXes walk bipedally.

Yeah...


You want beefy, tough-to-kill tanks? Then the driver needs to lose the main gun.

[captainkapautz]

Originally Posted by Landtank

It would be cool to have tanks last as long as they did in WW2, some Tiger 1's have been reported to have received over 250 shots and made it back to base on their own power.

But that would obviously be unrealistic for a game :P

Taking shit out of context doesn't help your arguement.

Those ~250 shots were more than likely from guns that couldn't even penetrate the armor head on, much less if it was glancing.

Originally Posted by DerFurst

Dying quicker in a game where it takes longer to get back into the action is terrible design.

Doesn't take that much, if at all, longer to get back into the fight compared to BF3.

And tanks still die quicker in BF than in PS2.

Originally Posted by FPClark

In BF3 there is at max 8 total tanks in the game.

No BF3 map has 8 tanks, max is 4(?).

[Phellix]

Originally Posted by kaffis

Why not?

Because it's obvious you haven't played PS1 and must have only seen the E3 footage, MAX's /=/ tanks, they should not be as squishy as a MAX.

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by captainkapautz

Taking shit out of context doesn't help your arguement.

Those ~250 shots were more than likely from guns that couldn't even penetrate the armor head on, much less if it was glancing.

Well then allow me to bore you to death with the history of the Tiger I tank on the Eastern Front.

You see, over 1300 Tiger I's were deployed on the Eastern Front starting in December 1942. The most operational at one time was 400, with ~200 operational at any given time. They had a brinell hardness of 280, while the Russian AP rounds had a brinell hardness of 200-230. This means that the Tiger I's armor was actually harder than the Armor Piercing tip of the Russian ammunition, allowing it the shrug off 95% of all shots.

Tiger I Tank 121 took 250 shots, and still managed to limp back to base. It had taken shots from several different calibers ranging from 14.5mm to 100mm. It's own gun, a Flak 88mm, was the largest gun put on a main battle tank in WW2, and it could penetrate the armor of nearly any other tank out there. So the fact that it could survive shots from a 100mm anti-tank gun is something to behold.

Also, shooting a Tiger I tank head on is silly seeing as it's head on armor was 4 inches thick, you would want to shoot at its side or rear, where the armor was only 2.4 inches thick.

Now as I said, this is all extremely unrealistic for a game seeing as it wouldn't be any fun to shoot a Vanguard 250 times. But it would be cool to be in that tank har har.

/end history lesson

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Phellix

Because it's obvious you haven't played PS1 and must have only seen the E3 footage, MAX's /=/ tanks, they should not be as squishy as a MAX.

Well, I have.

I've also followed the development of PS2 enough to realize that PS2 tanks are nothing like PS1 tanks. So they shouldn't get armor/ttk commensurate with what was balanced for PS1 tanks.

That's all I'm saying.

Now, I'd love to see PS2 tanks step back towards PS1 tank design factors, because I'd *rather* they be balanced with a higher ttk/more armor. But that's just completely unjustified when it's a one-man vehicle with so many similarities to a MAX (for instance, resource cost). MAXes don't enjoy armor sufficient to require a dozen AV hits to take them out, why should tanks?

If the resource outlay is enough to justify this, then surely MAXes ought to have that, too? But that'd be way overpowered, right? Yeah. Just like it would be on a MBT where the driver gets the main gun.

One guy should never be the equivalent of an entire squad of guys with the right weapons to unload on him just because of the equipment he chose. It completely trivializes all other equipment in the game.

[Vanath]

Originally Posted by Landtank

*Lots of text here*

You shouldn't be trying to compare these tanks to Tiger tanks anyway. Tiger tanks were exceptionally well built and very expensive. If the Germans could have fielded exclusively Tiger tanks they would have.

A better comparison would be to the standard Panzer IV.



Anyway. It should be difficult for one soldier with an AV weapon to take out a tank. They should be able to harm it and scare them off but one man should not be taking out a tank without a lot of time and skill.

What i'm really worried about is the effectiveness of tanks when compared to aircraft. If aircraft can go in and wipe out a column of tanks without much damage then I don't see a point fielding tanks.

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by Vanath

You shouldn't be trying to compare these tanks to Tiger tanks anyway. Tiger tanks were exceptionally well built and very expensive. If the Germans could have fielded exclusively Tiger tanks they would have.

A better comparison would be to the standard Panzer IV.



Anyway. It should be difficult for one soldier with an AV weapon to take out a tank. They should be able to harm it and scare them off but one man should not be taking out a tank without a lot of time and skill.

What i'm really worried about is the effectiveness of tanks when compared to aircraft. If aircraft can go in and wipe out a column of tanks without much damage then I don't see a point fielding tanks.

Indeed you are absolutely correct, as I said it's unrealistic for a game.

I agree about aircraft, I'll be in one most of the time and I actually don't want to be able to annihilate an enemy column of tanks, it seems silly and ridiculous.

[Forsaken One]

The poll is just bad. Tanks have what is called HITBOXS. This means that different places you hit a tank will take different amounts of damage.

As the poll is clearly done in such a way that all hitboxs do the same amount of damage the thread should be closed and made anew right or be modded to show the correct way and as such offer decent choices that make sense.

No offense meant if this all sounds harsh, just the thread should reflect the right choices and info.

[Draz]

From looking at videos I think HAs only carry 5 AV rockets, so hopefully fewer than 5 shots.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Landtank

Good Historic bit....

Now as I said, this is all extremely unrealistic for a game seeing as it wasn't any fun to shoot a Vanguard 250 times.

/end history lesson

I enjoyed the history bit, but note that I fixed your grammar concerning how many fecking magrider rounds it took to kill a Vanny in PS1 (and no, I don't mean the PPA!)

[GreatMazinkaise]

Originally Posted by Draz

From looking at videos I think HAs only carry 5 AV rockets, so hopefully fewer than 5 shots.

Maybe if they hit it from the rear... assuming stock armor plating and rocket damage. Anything else would be excessive.

[Draz]

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

Maybe if they hit it from the rear... assuming stock armor plating and rocket damage. Anything else would be excessive.

I think 2 shots from behind, 4 on the sides would be fair.