Tanks, armour and lock on/FaF AV

WNxThentar · 2012-06-14, 10:38 PM

The TTK tank threads got me thinking. The VS sacrifice armour for speed and mobility. This is fine for a tank on tank battle where a lighter less armoured tank can try to avoid a heavier more armoured tanks shots. But where lock on AV is concerned the speed and mobility really looses its value.

Say it takes 10 shots to kill Vanguard and 6 to kill a magrider rider should the magrider be 50% faster?

With customization you'll be able to armour up a magrider to have more armour like the vanguard...but at the end of the day the vanguard will have the option to armour up even more.

It will be interesting to see how beta fleshes the vehicles out both with opposing vehicles and things like lock on or fire and forget technologies that negate much of the manoeuvring bonuses.

I'm not asking for anything here just raising something to look at and actively test against during beta

Soothsayer · 2012-06-14, 10:44 PM

From what was seen that the E3 demo, a highly maneuverable tank will be able to break locks by getting behind cover. There is way more cover in the areas we saw compared to PS1 and it's been commented by Clegg (I think that's properly attributed) a level designer that there is so little cover surrounding bases in the original.

If he's commenting on that, I'd assume that he is going to do something to correct that in the sequel.

Ultimately, I think it boils down to using the advantages of the tanks properly.

Meriv · 2012-06-14, 10:53 PM

I hope they take some good formulas from wot, just to not forget turret speed rotation and tank rotation speed (or any else for how slow the vanguard is and mag faster it will always keep a lock on him)

WNxThentar · 2012-06-14, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Soothsayer

From what was seen that the E3 demo, a highly maneuverable tank will be able to break locks by getting behind cover. There is way more cover in the areas we saw compared to PS1 and it's been commented by Clegg (I think that's properly attributed) a level designer that there is so little cover surrounding bases in the original.

If he's commenting on that, I'd assume that he is going to do something to correct that in the sequel.

Ultimately, I think it boils down to using the advantages of the tanks properly.

Agreed. I like what I see so far with the terrain. I'm sure we'll get everything tuned up during beta. I like the idea that there will be places where while you might be able to get tanks into the terrain just leaves you as sitting ducks but we just have to make sure that as a whole the whole "well you don't need as much armour because your faster" is actually backed up over all by the situations encountered.

It isn't just an issue with tanks either ... I'm just keen to get into beta and start crunching numbers and doing peer review type of analysis on some of this stuff.

kaffis · 2012-06-14, 11:19 PM

I just want to point out that I think you're grossly overestimating what the difference in armor will be between the two. Carry on.

fishirboy · 2012-06-14, 11:24 PM

See this situation happend in real life, WW2 to be exact, Nazi's vs Americans (could have been Russia or Britain). The Nazis had a fast tank able to have its top gun rotate faster then other tanks and would simply just strafe the tank by getting behind its gun. The Americans (correct me if I am wrong) had more armor and fire power but the speed and rotation of the gun barrel were slow and would not be able to defeat the Nazis in close quarter combat. So will the TR have a slow barrel turning time?

love to all!

Khrakhan · 2012-06-14, 11:31 PM

As for the scythe anyways, I hope the high maneuverability really helps toward getting out of lock-ons and also evading missiles that have been launched. With their 'on a dime' turning, they should be able to wait for a missile to get fairly close, then do a sudden 150 degree turn, hit the afterburners and let the missile just overshoot.

I know I'll be highly vulnerable in a scythe, armor wise anyway, so the agility should play a big factor in allowing you to evade the dangers. I have no problem being 2 shotted out of the sky, as long as if I have the skills I have a fair chance at evading those shots.

RedKnights · 2012-06-15, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by fishirboy

See this situation happend in real life, WW2 to be exact, Nazi's vs Americans (could have been Russia or Britain). The Nazis had a fast tank able to have its top gun rotate faster then other tanks and would simply just strafe the tank by getting behind its gun. The Americans (correct me if I am wrong) had more armor and fire power but the speed and rotation of the gun barrel were slow and would not be able to defeat the Nazis in close quarter combat. So will the TR have a slow barrel turning time?

love to all!

You reversed it, American had the smaller nimbler sherman and the germans had larger slower panzers.

But i'm sure these are all factors the devs are thinking about.

Revanmug · 2012-06-15, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by fishirboy

See this situation happend in real life, WW2 to be exact, Nazi's vs Americans (could have been Russia or Britain). The Nazis had a fast tank able to have its top gun rotate faster then other tanks and would simply just strafe the tank by getting behind its gun. The Americans (correct me if I am wrong) had more armor and fire power but the speed and rotation of the gun barrel were slow and would not be able to defeat the Nazis in close quarter combat. So will the TR have a slow barrel turning time?

love to all!

huh... You fuck up you history class...

I guess you are talking about the americain tank destroyer M18 hellcat which had low armor but a very high speed right? Because Americain never got any relevant powerful tank in WW2.

WNxThentar · 2012-06-15, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by Khrakhan

As for the scythe anyways, I hope the high maneuverability really helps toward getting out of lock-ons and also evading missiles that have been launched. With their 'on a dime' turning, they should be able to wait for a missile to get fairly close, then do a sudden 150 degree turn, hit the afterburners and let the missile just overshoot.

I know I'll be highly vulnerable in a scythe, armor wise anyway, so the agility should play a big factor in allowing you to evade the dangers. I have no problem being 2 shotted out of the sky, as long as if I have the skills I have a fair chance at evading those shots.

The problem with this is CSHD makes it near impossible to do that. Because you could be easily a 1/2 second behind the guy shooting you. They see you hit, you think the missile is 500ms away and you do your turn thinking it will miss but you are already crashed and burned on the other guys screen.

Which again shows how being more manoeuvrable isn't that useful with stuff like CSHD. Armour is armour and the CSHD doesn't impact it.

That said I think that the CSHD is going to be much better this time around. Higher frequency should smooth it out hopefully and what you want to do might be possible.

If anyone tries to cheat by flooding their network to slow crap down while killing will be easily identified as if I was SOE I'd keep track of latency and if a player is constantly killing people while having a higher then normal ping for themselves then they are probably cheating and ripe for an quick check and ban.

Argg · 2012-06-15, 01:08 AM

Heya Thentar,
I'm personally a bit sceptical about being the light fast tank with a fixed forward main gun, instead of just an oversized hull MG with turreted main gun but we'll have to see how it plays out. Looking forward to the data collection...

Re WWII, the Germans had that lighter and more nimble thing going on the Russian Front early in the war on the Eastern front once they'd blown through the interwar lights like T26s and BT7s, and started meeting the T34s and KVIs in numbers while they were still mainly Pz III & some Pz IV. West Front, late PzIV are about on par with Shermans, but Pz V Panther and PzVI Tiger are definitely heavier than Shermans, as are most late German TDs. US TDs were very light but harder hitting than most Shermans.
M36 considerably outguns even that.

The dodge around there turret arc thing was not too effective, not enough to win anything like even numbers. Shermans tended to have to swarm Tigers, expecting to lose about 5 to 1 trying to get in on the flanks up close. Wittmann's fight where his single Tiger bottled up a column of British Shermans & other vehicles by hitting front and rear in tight, road bound terrain, and then slaughtering the rest of the column was an example of how bad it could go wrong for the Allies if mobility wasn't an option.

DarkChiron · 2012-06-15, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Argg

Heya Thentar,
Wittmann's fight where his single Tiger bottled up a column of British Shermans & other vehicles by hitting front and rear in tight, road bound terrain, and then slaughtering the rest of the column was an example of how bad it could go wrong for the Allies if mobility wasn't an option.

That's something I look forward to testing. Want to ambush a column of vehicles? Blow up the front and back ones. Let the others try to fight while they can't move. Hopefully vehicle debris is persistent enough to allow that to happen.

Khrakhan · 2012-06-15, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

That's something I look forward to testing. Want to ambush a column of vehicles? Blow up the front and back ones. Let the others try to fight while they can't move. Hopefully vehicle debris is persistent enough to allow that to happen.

Pfft, VS'll just hover over their fallen comrades

Besides, who needs bridges when we can just go over the water....assuming the bridge is to go over water, and not just a big canyon that even we cant hover over

DarkChiron · 2012-06-15, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Khrakhan

Pfft, VS'll just hover over their fallen comrades

Besides, who needs bridges when we can just go over the water....assuming the bridge is to go over water, and not just a big canyon that even we cant hover over

Look at my post, dawg. I AM Vanu Sovereignty. I don't have to worry about people with vehicles that don't suck.

Mechzz · 2012-06-15, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Revanmug

I guess you are talking about the americain tank destroyer M18 hellcat which had low armor but a very high speed right? Because Americain never got any relevant powerful tank in WW2.

I haven't heard of the M18 hellcat, but the British used a Sherman variant that we call the Firefly. It was the only tank we had that could even come close to taking on the Panther or Tiger in Normandy.