Jump to content

Vewt

Member
  • Content count

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vewt

  • Rank
    Squad Leader
  1. You should probably google what an L115A3 is before going further in the conversation.
  2. Weird nerfs to T-72B3...etc.

    I stand corrected. The T72B3 requires immediate buffs.
  3. Weird nerfs to T-72B3...etc.

    Ok, I'm actually not posting again now.
  4. "I want every player in Squad to be the equivalent of someone who practices 12 hours a day to do trick shots, without any practice on their part." This is a game where you can make a standing 1000m shot first try every time, and you think shooting should be easier!? Good players already can do anything you see high level 3 gun people do, it just takes more practice than more gamey games.
  5. Weird nerfs to T-72B3...etc.

    The frontal roof isn't a weak spot. It's 200mm but the angling is so extreme that it can't be exploited for damage from the front, same as the Abrams 70mm roof can't really be exploited because of the angle. Even if the T72 roof were exploitable, it soaks 400 damage. The T72 always wins from the front because the turret ring absorbs less damage than the mantlet, such that the T72 always needs fewer hits to kill. Also, you're mixing up early M1A1 and M1A2 capabilities. Late M1A1 and all M1A2 have a fully independent commander station that includes its own LRF. The M1 series from AIM onwards have a large number of other useful capabilities that the T72B3 family doesn't have in the areas of communications and computing that aren't posted about on the internet, many linked to FBCB2. Commander override has been on the M1 since very early days, but in earlier versions commander override will always be a battlesight engagement with range set to 1200m.
  6. Weird nerfs to T-72B3...etc.

    I'm not going to engage in a drawn out argument. I won't be posting again after this. I'm aware of all the things you just said, no imagination required, but they're all irrelevant to the point I'm making. The T72's "frontal weak spot" is it's lfp at 80mm. "Frontal weak spot" has airquotes because no decent crew will ever expose it as it is will placed to obviate any need to do so. The Abrams has two "frontal weak spots", a 70mm front turret roof that's not a weak spot for any practical engagement, and an 80mm turret ring that must be exposed for basically all engagements. The overall armour configurations are very simple: The T72B3's weak spots, frontal and otherwise, make it vulnerable to ambush scenarios when mishandled but for fighting other tanks are far better. It has a better turret from all frontal aspects with higher armour and better angles, but a weaker frontal hull. The M1 has a more forgiving armour model for novice crews against novice anti-armour squads, with a stronger ufp, but is far worse for fighting tanks head on because of weak spots that must be exposed even when hull down. The Refleks having its pen lowered is basically incidental to the point that it's a higher damage option, because it's just that - an option. You don't have to use it. It has its place for long range ambushing where it massively outperforms main gun in first round hit probability and damage potential, but main gun is generally better for combat. The M1 doesn't get that option, but in return gets slightly better gun handling. Armament configuration mirrors what's happening with armour configuration - a good crew has more options with the T72 that are more effective in specific situations, but the Abrams is more forgiving for novice crews. The T72B3 is very consistently the preferred tank for high level crews in Squad, in large part because with good crews it always wins a heads up fight with an M1 due to a better armour configuration. That is the essence of what we're talking about here - whether the damage and armour models are screwing the T72B3, and they're not, it's the opposite: They're the key to why it's the stronger and preferred tank. In a single sentence: The T72 is much stronger, but a little harder to use. I think that both of the points you raise in the OP are just fine, but I think your reasoning and justification is very poor. This isn't a balance issue at all, but it is a realism issue: The changes you're proposing would nerf the tank that's already considered to be quite a bit weaker by good players. Conversely it's difficult to make an argument from a hard realism standpoint when so many of the characteristics and features of the tanks just aren't in the game, for example the complete absence of FCS and data linking where we know the M1A2 has enormous advantages over the T72. If you want a tank simulation that will take account of all these factors and not simplify or gamify any of them, Steel Beasts is only $125USD, but I suspect you'll get bored pretty quickly.
  7. Weird nerfs to T-72B3...etc.

    Your thread is literally made to complain that the tank that doesn't have any frontal weak spots and which has a main armament option that does 30%+ damage is being let down by the armour and damage model.
  8. Weird nerfs to T-72B3...etc.

    Edit: Please disregard, I just noticed who posted the thread.
  9. HAT Question

    880g NEQ. Still comfortably between two and three M67s (620 and 930g). The explosive content of PBXN-110 is the HMX which is only 88% of the 590g - I was giving a rough figure for the explosive content only (which is actually 519g, a bit over 500g) and used that for RE because I didn't bother doing the original math. I'm glad I didn't bother because it illustrates why this conversation is a waste of time pretty clearly. I'm leaving this conversation because it's a gigantic waste of time since you're obviously not engaging in good faith. For example, you could easily have done the calc yourself right there to see that the NEQ was between 2 and 3 M67s to see if the point actually stood instead of trying to use the total PBXN-110 weight to launch for an ill fated "Gotcha moment". If you were engaging in good faith (ie. facts of the matter were actually of importance to the opinion you hold) that's a check you definitely would have done, because the comparison would have some value to you. There have been a few other examples in both threads that should have been red flags, like quibbling over picking a HX77 over a 40M, but I figured you'd google a few things and accept that your positions are just flat out wrong. Clearly that's not going to happen so I'm out. Peace out.
  10. HAT Question

    I literally listed the explosive in a post above (HMX). 441D shells use PBXN-110 which is 88% HMX. HMX has an RE of 1.7 giving an NEQ of 850g. M67 frags use 180g of Comp B which has an RE of 1.72 (higher than HMX) giving each one an NEQ of 310g. A 441D has, as I previously said, between 2 and 3 M67's worth of charge. I'm not engaging with this anymore. It's pointless because you're not just ignorant, you're wilfully ignorant.
  11. Iron sight zoom better in post scriptum

    Dropping it.
  12. HAT Question

    Like, if you ask the same question about a 155mm HE with 7kg of explosive and a different fuse going off in or under the tray, that's a different matter. Same thing if there's a few pallets of detonators. But an 84 HE going off in the tray killing a truck? No way.
  13. HAT Question

    Ecchi, you haven't destroyed anything except for your own reputation. In one thread you're a person who'se never fired a Carl Gustav or operated a military vehicle arguing with someone who has about what the effect of a HE round in the back of a military truck would be likely to do it. In the other thread you're claiming that you can more easily spot a man at 1km than you can in Squad and that when you look down ironsights in real life you magically get superhuman visual acuity. A 441D going off in the tray of a truck would not stop it. The trucks we're talking about will operate even with a rear axle or drive shaft snapped halfway down the length of the tray (both I have seen) and a 441D is not going to do anywhere near that much damage. There is simply nothing critical to the truck continuing to function anywhere near where the relatively small and untamped blast and minor shrapnel. If you want to see what the target effects of these rounds are, check this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jZij3gH3xA) and skip to the end. The blast and shrapnel effects from this round are just not what you think they are; my memory didn't serve me because I went back and double checked and the total warhead weight is only about 1.5kg - the explosive filler is only about 500g or between the explosive of 2 and 3 M67 hand grenades. The absolute best case scenario would be a freak chance of completely destroying the air system and causing the suspension to drop (if it uses air suspension, and some of the trucks we're talking about do) and engaging the brakes (if it uses air brakes, which most of the trucks we're talking about do). With momentum and engine power would overcome the brakes until they overheated and failed, but the driver might well lose control and crash in the mean time. The components anywhere near the tray of a truck are simple not what you think they are. A vehicle as simple as a Hilux will continue to function for kilometres after taking small arms fire to the engine block. More fire or larger calibres before anti-materiel rounds will just make it fail sooner. Vehicles with larger components and more redundant designs, such as those we're talking about, will continue to function longer. If it was a BAF truck, then some of the shrapnel would hit the engine, but again, that wouldn't stop it inside your engagement area, or even inside an area the size of a Squad map in most cases. The only two ways such a poorly aimed shot would stop a truck from getting out of the engagement area, outside of some kind of freak occurrence, is if it incapacitated the driver or if the load was sensitive explosives (or it was a fuel truck). Against a BAF truck that would be basically impossible, but against most of the trucks we're talking about it's at the very least an outside chance depending on the load. The only explosives I can think of that are sensitive enough to sympathetically explode from a nearby explosion like we're talking about (ie. small and high velocity charge, not in contact) is detonators and primers. You can literally shoot military explosives and most ammunition without any risk of it exploding - the main and very big exception being detonators which will explode for a lot less effort than even that. If you put me in a non-armoured cab variant of a HX77, loaded me up with a few tonnes of plastic explosives and some small arms ammunition and set me a challenge to drive away from you while you shot at me with HE frag from my 6 o'clock, I would happily do it, literally not a joke - and I'd win at least 9 times out of 10. The truck would require repairs afterwards, but it would be making it out pretty comfortably.
  14. Iron sight zoom better in post scriptum

    I'll do this a little out of order since it's necessary to perhaps get it through to you why you're wrong: 2. We are literally talking about visual acuity. Visual acuity is literally the term for the topic we're discussing. Visual acuity is your ability to discern objects using you eyes. Whether "mental focus" in the sense you're talking about plays into it or not is irrelevant to whether or not visual acuity is the term. Concentrating really hard on things doesn't make your visual acuity superhuman; superhuman visual acuity in the context of what we're talking about is better than 0.0003 radians acuity. 1. I haven't heard single aperture sights called peep sights, and I shoot a lot, but I might be wrong. Either way it's irrelevant to the conversation: A single aperture will not give you superhuman acuity. A single aperture will at, at best, correct your vision if you have eyesight problems. Double apertures will increase acuity beyond 0.0003 radians acuity and produce a slight magnification effect. 3. I have recorded it as a video this time, because I think you're cooking your screenshots. You will see that at 1000m a .3m wide target remains very much discernible. Its precise characteristics do change depending on viewing angle, but even while moving around or changing point of focus it remains visible and I can't get it to disappear. https://streamable.com/iqrhm 4. The pixel doesn't ever disappear when I record. You can go frame by frame and it's visible. Its optical qualities change because it's a subpixel entity so the graphics engine can't necessarily decide exactly what it should be showing me, but it's always visible. It actually shouldn't be visible at all unless it's at the exact centre of your screen; even 1 degree away from your exact optical centre it would be invisible in real life. At two degrees from your optical centre the target would need to be .6m across to be visible and at four degrees from centre it would need to be 1.2m wide. Halfway to the edge of your screen on 90FOV even a tank sized target would be invisible at that distance in real life. You, like many people who have never spent time trying to camouflaged things at reasonable distances, massively overestimate how good a MK1 eyeball is. If you really, seriously think that you can spot targets more easily than you can in this game, or hell, take 1000m standing shots as easily as you do in this game, you're on drugs. Every piece of evidence out there will tell you that you can't including people that know far better. Finally, for your edification I went to the shed and dug out my competency logbook so that you can stop slinging around your belief that I mustn't have been in the Army since I'm telling you that your beliefs about things are wrong. Unfortunately I can't find my 84 RoA or a few others so you'll just have to make do with my GSMG qual and take my word for the other thread that I qual'd 84 live fire and range supervisor for direct fire support weapon ranges. https://imgur.com/a/0YvBG7S
  15. HAT Question

    Unless it was literally detonators in the back, nothing likely to be important to the conversation.
×