Jump to content
BadVlad

Vehicles vs AT infantry in V12

Recommended Posts

Posted this in the general discussion thread as well, but it applies here too

Quote

TLDR: I don't think that vehicles are too strong, I think that the infantry's tools to deal with them are too weak.

 

You can no longer run a squad that is just infantry, combined arms is now a requirement for all infantry squads on almost every map. Every match of V12 I grab a logi and try to command an infantry squad is a frustrating mess. Give me a couple of dedicated tankers to drive around an APC all game and it's spectacular. 

 

There are 2 problems with this:

 

1. Infantry cant deal with an APC or IFV without an APC or IFV of their own, even in CQB where infantry should reign supreme. The LAT does too little damage/doesn't have enough ammo, and there is only 1 HAT kit per team. A vehicle at range should win every time but having to retreat as infantry because a BTR is parked as a roadblock is kinda frustrating. Also, sometimes, I just want to command an infantry squad and not worry about how to position my Bradley. I don't always want to manage a vehicle and an infantry squad.

 

2. Being the driver is kinda boring, you look through a keyhole not doing much for 45-65 mins, now 2 hours :(. I frequently have people soloing my APCs because no one wants to drive....

 

My solution is to give 3 HATs per team, 1 max per squad. If that skews the balance too much, make crewmen kits and HAT kits mutually exclusive. That gives infantry a tool to fight vehicles but vehicles get scared of tight spaces and still rule medium to long range. Also there are more ppl to go on crazy daring missions to flank and kill enemy vehicles, makes for good stories and fun games.

 

Not sure what to do about vehicle driving. Extra HATs may make driving more exciting since there are more threats to worry about. You could also make driver seats open to riflemen as well. I know it's not as realistic but it makes it more fun if drivers can get engaged in infantry combat while the APC sits and covers the squad for 10 mins.

 

So far V12 is awesome, but it needs some tweaking after such a huge change. Its nice now that vehicles are real threats, in V11 the vehicles were paper mache with a mediocre gun. Now infantry are hopeless grunts that can't get around the map easily. 

 

Also, wrong thread for this, but WTF with the 2 hour matches now??? I can't play a quick match before going to bed on a weeknight anymore. Really bad for keeping around a good pool of SLs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There´s just a problem with vehicles HP, located damage or even hit reg boxes. 

 

I´m confident they´ll fix it, no big deal.

 

No need to change anything else. No need to change roles or mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-11-19 at 8:35 PM, Gopblin said:

I posted on the same subject on Reddit and in GD here. I get that some people just say "adapt to the new meta, its fun in some ways", and that would be an OK answer if we were playing a WWI game.

As it is, it's a little ridiculous that:
A) Vehicles can take multiple LAT penetrations (we're talking 3 LATs to kill an MRAP and something around 6-8 for MBT - I mean ingame, vehicles are definitely less durable at shooting range)
B) Many maps there are only maybe 20-30 active infantry and 2 MBTs + 2 IFVs + multiple APCs
C) Only maybe 3-5 of those infantrymen carry any sort of AT weapon

IRL a tank or IFV wouldn't dream of driving into the middle of an enemy-held objective held by near-peer adversaries because most infantrymen would probably have AT weapons at hand (the whole point of LAW/RPG26 is to give one to every single mook the moment you hear the enemy has armor in theater), and because it's cheaper to buy 1000 RPG-7s than to buy one MBT.

Basically, "tanks can just drive up to infantrymen and bully them in close quarters" meta went out the window IRL when first handheld HEAT weapons were invented, and there is no reason to switch Squad vehicle/infantry balance to WW1 era simply because V12 appears to miscalculate vehicle damage.

Probably an MRAP would be bad off at even 1 LAT but an APC would probably require around 3 AT4 rounds (according to manufacturer Bofors). An MBT would basically be impossible to defeat in any direction with a LAT kit (excluding heavuer tandem rounds and such). You would however typically be able to get a lucky shot line 1/10 maybe to hit the tracks and make them immovable. Break their sights and scopes etc. Down to reserve sight upon very heavy fire. That would be realistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Probably an MRAP would be bad off at even 1 LAT but an APC would probably require around 3 AT4 rounds (according to manufacturer Bofors). An MBT would basically be impossible to defeat in any direction with a LAT kit (excluding heavuer tandem rounds and such). You would however typically be able to get a lucky shot line 1/10 maybe to hit the tracks and make them immovable. Break their sights and scopes etc. Down to reserve sight upon very heavy fire. That would be realistic. 


1. In terms of internal damage: It's kinda arbitrary how the devs want to model HEAT penetrations because they're highly variable. Whatever/whoever is in the path of the jet definitely gets destroyed. The rest depends on the specific weapon/vehicle/penetration point/moon phase.
Tanks can actually be hurt by HEAT penetrations more than APCs because there is much less internal space and all crewmen are quite likely to be injured by a single impact. On the other hand, APCs are have empty boxes inside and a jet may pass them harmlessly, but the explosion blastwave itself may "leak in" though the paper-thin armor and put the crew out of action. Etc. On top of all of this, crews often panic and abandon vehicles that suffered penetrations because waiting around for another one isn't a good idea. etc.

 

Overall, I'd say that Squad currently errs too far on the durability side of things. Yeah it isn't unheard of for tanks or APCs to take multiple HEAT penetrations and remain operational, but that shouldn't be the default scenario. An interesting and more realistic damage model would be if an armored vehicle had a percentage chance of exploding when armor is penetrated: 40% for LAT, 60% for HAT, ATGM or tank APFDS or HEAT.


2. Modern MBTs have pretty much all the armor in the front half, because they're Cold War creations expected to slug it out with other MBTs face to face.

he rear half or both Abrams and T72  (including the turrets) only has 50-80mm of armor (2-3 inches), which can be easily defeated by virtually any AT weapon designed after 1942. Squad faithfully models this BTW: you can pen both tanks in the rear half with a LAT. It just takes like 6-10 penetrations to kill em, which is way too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gopblin said:


1. In terms of internal damage: It's kinda arbitrary how the devs want to model HEAT penetrations because they're highly variable. Whatever/whoever is in the path of the jet definitely gets destroyed. The rest depends on the specific weapon/vehicle/penetration point/moon phase.
Tanks can actually be hurt by HEAT penetrations more than APCs because there is much less internal space and all crewmen are quite likely to be injured by a single impact. On the other hand, APCs are have empty boxes inside and a jet may pass them harmlessly, but the explosion blastwave itself may "leak in" though the paper-thin armor and put the crew out of action. Etc. On top of all of this, crews often panic and abandon vehicles that suffered penetrations because waiting around for another one isn't a good idea. etc.

 

Overall, I'd say that Squad currently errs too far on the durability side of things. Yeah it isn't unheard of for tanks or APCs to take multiple HEAT penetrations and remain operational, but that shouldn't be the default scenario. An interesting and more realistic damage model would be if an armored vehicle had a percentage chance of exploding when armor is penetrated: 40% for LAT, 60% for HAT, ATGM or tank APFDS or HEAT.


2. Modern MBTs have pretty much all the armor in the front half, because they're Cold War creations expected to slug it out with other MBTs face to face.

he rear half or both Abrams and T72  (including the turrets) only has 50-80mm of armor (2-3 inches), which can be easily defeated by virtually any AT weapon designed after 1942. Squad faithfully models this BTW: you can pen both tanks in the rear half with a LAT. It just takes like 6-10 penetrations to kill em, which is way too much.

I highly doubt that abrams has as a little as 50-80 mm armour in the rear (where in the rear - certainly not on the turret at least). First of all which type of armour are you referring to? When we talk about an rpg for example they give a number in mm off rha steel armour for that round, but rha is ancient technology and Abrams use chobham type ceramic steel uranium composition armour which is probably 2-3 times width as rha equivalent. I would be interested in where you got those numbers from. I don't believe them or your conclusions stemming from them.

 

Typically an Abrams could be at most immobilized by an rpg in the rear, possibly the engine or more likely the tracks, but it certainly won't be taken out and definitely not by anything before the rpg7 (after 1942). That is plain wrong. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

I highly doubt that abrams has as a little as 50-80 mm armour in the rear (where in the rear - certainly not on the turret at least). First of all which type of armour are you referring to? When we talk about an rpg for example they give a number in mm off rha steel armour for that round, but rha is ancient technology and Abrams use chobham type ceramic steel uranium composition armour which is probably 2-3 times width as rha equivalent. I would be interested in where you got those numbers from. I don't believe them or your conclusions stemming from them.

 

Typically an Abrams could be at most immobilized by an rpg in the rear, possibly the engine or more likely the tracks, but it certainly won't be taken out and definitely not by anything before the rpg7 (after 1942). That is plain wrong. 

 

Well, you do have a point that modern composite armor protects quite well against HEAT munitions, and there is more to it than simple thickness. Still, take a look at this pic of Abrams armor:
M1A1_HA_sideLOS.jpg

 

Now keep in mind that even base PG7VL round of the RPG-7 has penetration of >500mm RHA. Therefore, from the side the base RPG7 should be able to penetrate all of the hull except the front. It can also pen the turret ring, and and decent chance to penetrate almost all of turret (guaranteed on ammo stowage in back, decent chance on middle with 520-570mm protection, front is protected). Moreover, Squad models this because LATs can pen Abrams from the side consistently, its just that penetrations do unrealistically low damage.

Edited by Gopblin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-11-21 at 1:24 AM, Gopblin said:

 

Well, you do have a point that modern composite armor protects quite well against HEAT munitions, and there is more to it than simple thickness. Still, take a look at this pic of Abrams armor:
M1A1_HA_sideLOS.jpg

 

Now keep in mind that even base PG7VL round of the RPG-7 has penetration of >500mm RHA. Therefore, from the side the base RPG7 should be able to penetrate all of the hull except the front. It can also pen the turret ring, and and decent chance to penetrate almost all of turret (guaranteed on ammo stowage in back, decent chance on middle with 520-570mm protection, front is protected). Moreover, Squad models this because LATs can pen Abrams from the side consistently, its just that penetrations do unrealistically low damage.

The lowest number I can see in that picture is 248mm (rha?) against HEAT towards the engine compartment, typically a hit here would MAYBE take out the engine if you are lucky. It is not going to be a very big hole probably. But as I pointed out will maybe result in a mobility kill with the crew surviving easily. Other fact is that PG7VL is not any round from 1942, it was developed in 1977 to defeat Abrams and Leopard 2 specifically. More importantly however is that the numbers refer to a perfect 90° hit straight on. If you hit at 45° you are gonna have values those number*1.41. If more than 45° then even more because the round has more armour to travel through. That being said I am not saying that it is 100% impossible to take it out completely. I do also think that when you shoot with the t72 a sabot round in the back of an Abrams that it should be a definite kill which it wasn't as I discovered on the shooting range. So yes, I agree somewhat on tanks being too hard to kill for some rounds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people suggesting that a squad cannot take out a vehicle seem to forget that this is a teamwork game that vehicles bring new problems and that armoured support should be called in.  Heavy vehicles should be fearful of close contact with infantry but also for balance in the game one RPG should not be able to take out the heavies it just means that a vehicle is as soft a target as a soldier.      I like the new vehicle strength it creates fear in the troops when a tank or btr is near and that is good.

 

As for vehicle vs vehicle thats another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooo come on its disgusting how many hits with an at a vhic can take this days.I mean come on and when the crew decides thy simply turn around and go to repair.With poor modular destruction this is not good.

When thy make when you shoot a at rocket in the tracks,turret,engine to kill it and a crew member beeing able to die when hit then thy can put it in.Untill then its not that cool.As not all sides has tanks this days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem's being misdiagnosed here. Vehicles are ripping games up right now, which is realistic, but they're also being used unrealistically, with near impunity in tactically unfeasible ways.

 

I think that the problem is mostly that not enough areas are doing critical damage. I'm not seeing tanks get tracked from LAT hits to their drive sprokets or tracks. Ditto no loss of turret drive when the turret ring is hit, optics loss when a CROWS gets lit by small arms, and engine loss is unreliable with LAT from behind.

 

K Killing a tank with light and medium antitank weapons should be nearly impossible, but mobility or mission killing it when it's used improperly is pretty straightforward. That's why tanks need support for the close fight; there's little risk of catastrophic armour penetration, but throwing track if completely unsupported is a long term death sentence, and happens easily enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a few issues currently that are known to QA/Devs, and QA have said they're looking into vehicle balance. As with anything newly implemented, especially in it's first iteration, there's going to be kinks that need to be ironed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018/11/8 at 10:22 PM, MultiSquid said:

if you can't kill it, avoid it.

Was that supposed to be an argument? Cause it can literally be used in any balance discussion.

 

"Tank become completely immune to infantry RPG"

"if you can't kill it, avoid it."

 

"Machinegunners can now set up bipod in midair."

"if you can't kill it, avoid it."

 

"Grenadier can now on-shot an entire building."

"if you can't kill it, avoid it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Noobgamer said:

Was that supposed to be an argument? Cause it can literally be used in any balance discussion.

 

"Tank become completely immune to infantry RPG"

"if you can't kill it, avoid it."

 

"Machinegunners can now set up bipod in midair."

"if you can't kill it, avoid it."

 

"Grenadier can now on-shot an entire building."

"if you can't kill it, avoid it."

It is indeed quite a valid argument. As long as nothing in the game is in a way its not intended to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Noobgamer said:

Was that supposed to be an argument? Cause it can literally be used in any balance discussion.

Would you like to try that again, this time considering the rest of my post as well instead of picking one statement and displaying it out of context?

 

For the record, I remember learning "if you can't kill it, avoid it" from my teammates in PR, where the regular infantry squads were even more outmatched by tanks (which had thermals in addition to being virtually immune to LATs), yet people still found ways to work around it by employing the most basic teamwork. Also accepting that they weren't supposed to be able to flat out kill everything that came their way, something that a lot of Squad players seem to be unable to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think threre are some good points being made here. First off, like someone said, tracks can come off even with light at kit. Thermals are easily disabled even with a pistol if you lucky shoot it. That doesn't mean a tank is disabled though, but currently it seems it can only be taken out completely, or not taken out completely. This is causing the frustration I guess, and it's causing tanks to be somewhat overpowered I agree.

 

But I also agree with the concept, if you can't take it out - avoid it! Meaning, not things shouldn't be realistic of course, but instead that not all assets should be able to defeat all asset types. Instead support should be called in, or wait in the city and ambush. This creates real stretegy and excitement, and penalizes run and gun non-cooperative players because they won't stand a chance against a tank out in the open fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole "It's a team game, if you keep dying you aren't working together" thing is a really old argument that has gone back to the beginning of this game. There's a problem with the amount of firepower infantry can bring to the table.

 

I had two squads destroyed by a warrior with infantry support because although we managed to hit it a few times, it kept coming and killing us. We hid and stopped them from capping for virtually the entire game. We hid in our little urban environment, traded kills where we could but pretty much we were in a stalemate. You could say that's a good thing, the brits couldn't cap and progress and we were pretty much all locked down. 

 

but we hit an APC multiple times with explosives and it kept coming with little to no damage at all. Maybe the shots were in the worst place possible. Maybe the AT roles don't deal enough damage. 

 

You can combine arms all you would like, and communicate with the entire team all you would like. The other team also has more vehicles, they also have more squads, they are also doing other stuff around the map, and those threats must be met as well. I was pretty confident in our two squads locations today to take the cap point, it was just the APC that wrecked the day. 

 

There's a lot you can tell me that our team could have done with resupply and teamwork and coordination like we weren't doing it, which we were, and yet that sucker stayed there and owned the field in spite of the multiple hits, in spite of coordination. 

 

We were forced to avoid it because we could not kill it, but only because we could not kill it. There's definitely a lot of change that could happen here to balance it, I like the idea of taking out sights, taking out the guns, taking out the tracks, increasing damage and the amount of rockets you can carry, there's lots of solutions.

 

The best solution is not "if you can't kill it, avoid it" and it is also not "You need to use teamwork" a combination of those two answers would actually be a lot better, but those two alone are not the solution to any problem in balance or function this game has had. 

 

I don't really understand the few here who will stand by whatever there is and ask for no change, the solution is more teamwork, more avoidance of things you can't kill, instead of looking for change, seeing problems that are literally there and offering good solutions. 

 

I'm not sure "It's a teamwork game" and "If you can't kill it, avoid it" will help the devs get this game out of the alpha greenlight whirlpool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I Agee somewhat. They should have given you some Kornet missiles in that map. Insurgents use them too IRL at least.

 

When a tank fires a sabot in another tanks sides or rear it should be a definite kill. It shouldn't take 2 rounds at those angles. A tank could take 2 sabot rounds in the front maybe. That's it. Anything else is unrealistic. RPGs should bounce off tanks but like 1/5 cause a mobility kill. 

 

When it comes to an APC it should take max 3 AT4 to take it out from the front. 1 to the rear maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MultiSquid said:

Would you like to try that again, this time considering the rest of my post as well instead of picking one statement and displaying it out of context?

 

For the record, I remember learning "if you can't kill it, avoid it" from my teammates in PR, where the regular infantry squads were even more outmatched by tanks (which had thermals in addition to being virtually immune to LATs), yet people still found ways to work around it by employing the most basic teamwork. Also accepting that they weren't supposed to be able to flat out kill everything that came their way, something that a lot of Squad players seem to be unable to understand.

My original statement was "Was that supposed to be an argument?", NOT "Was that supposed to be the argument?". "if you can't kill it, avoid it." was the very part of your argument which I would like to address and I did. I didn't comment on the rest of your argument so there was no such thing as "out of context". 

 

Also pls stop suggesting that people against your ideas are underskilled or something, if anything an unbalanced game machanic would only facilitate people with great understanding of the game mechanic, like me, to further exploit the system and make life difficult for the average joes.

Edited by Noobgamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole “if you can’t avoid being raped, try to relax and enjoy” arguments would be fine in a vacuum - after all, there’s nothing wrong with playing a glorified World of Tanks videogame, even if it’s boring for the majority who play as infantry.

However, there is a major problem with the vehicle domination meta: it’s completely unrealistic. IRL trucks and keeps do not shrug off RPG shots. More importantly, IRL an infantry outfit expecting to engage enemy armor would at the very least issue a LAW/RPG26 to every soldier except machine gunners. And the dedicated AT gunners would be carrying more than one HEAT round apiece. And there would be artillery and aircraft and man-portable ATGMs and, most importantly, a whole lot more dudes with AT. So this meta is bad because it’s completely whacky and unrealistic, and I don’t like it for the same reason I wouldn’t like meta where pistols duels were the preferred method of infantry combat. If I wanted to play out fairytale scenarios, I’d boot up Dominions 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gopblin said:

The whole “if you can’t avoid being raped, try to relax and enjoy” arguments would be fine in a vacuum - after all, there’s nothing wrong with playing a glorified World of Tanks videogame, even if it’s boring for the majority who play as infantry.

However, there is a major problem with the vehicle domination meta: it’s completely unrealistic. IRL trucks and keeps do not shrug off RPG shots. More importantly, IRL an infantry outfit expecting to engage enemy armor would at the very least issue a LAW/RPG26 to every soldier except machine gunners. And the dedicated AT gunners would be carrying more than one HEAT round apiece. And there would be artillery and aircraft and man-portable ATGMs and, most importantly, a whole lot more dudes with AT. So this meta is bad because it’s completely whacky and unrealistic, and I don’t like it for the same reason I wouldn’t like meta where pistols duels were the preferred method of infantry combat. If I wanted to play out fairytale scenarios, I’d boot up Dominions 5

In real life though, tanks would never come alone either, but always in platoons of three or more, covering every sector. Also tanks would have thermals and realistic computerized fire control systems.

 

I say some maps shouldn't have tanks so infantry people can be happy. Some other maps should have tanks so combined warfare people can be happy as well. A few taste varieties. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience with V12 I feel at infantry vs armor balance is quite nice. Vehicles at range are a force to be feared as infantry and as they should can truly lock down a part of the map with decent visibility. Armor in close proximity gets decimated by infantry AT, not always destroyed, but disabled if you manage to get a engine hit on enemy armor, friendly armor has plenty of time to get to your position and finish the job. TOW one shots almost everything and can lock down huge parts of the map from enemy armor, if placed correctly, but require supply and need to be defended from infantry. 

 

I think the biggest problem with balance is the misconception of players that as an infantry squad they should be able to go head to head with armor. The tricky balancing act of making infantry begin abel to cripple enemy vehicles, but still needing help from friendly armour, other squads or just keeping an ammo source nearby is almost perfect. It makes every AT shot count and makes you fear armor as infantry, but at the same time keeps armour at its toes, and at a distance in fear of engine damage and TOWs. 

 

An other thing I run into frequently is players that have little patience, from my experience with PR and squad the best moments take time build up. A lot of players seem to want the instant gratification of blowing up a tank when they see one, but at least for me best experiences are when said tank has been pinning down my squad in preparation for an enemy infantry attack and we have no chance of taking it down from our position. I get on comms with a friendly tank squad who are on the other side of the map to come and rescue my squad before our position gets over run by infantry and I see them starting to make their way across the map.  At that point I know all we need to do to have a chance of winning is to dig in and try to stay alive. I know there are a hundred of ways this can fail, but if it doesn't and my team comes out on top it's gonna feel so much better that just spotting a tank and destroying it battlefield style. Patience, for me is the key to enjoying squad. 

 

The key to defeating enemy armour is in team work, not just working with your squad, but working with your whole team. I feel like V12 is the first step towards a truly team based experience, rather than a squad based one. Just keep on marking those vehicles on the map and relaying info to your teammates, dig in and wait for friendly cavalry to come to the rescue.

 

 

Edited by Laki
Typos / refining text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Laki said:

From my experience with V12 I feel at infantry vs armor balance is quite nice. Vehicles at range are a force to be feared as infantry and as they should can truly lock down a part of the map with decent visibility. Armor in close proximity gets decimated by infantry AT, not always destroyed, but disabled if you get a engine hit in friendly armor have plenty of time to get to your position and finish the job. TOW's one shot almost everything and can lock down huge parts of the map from enemy armor, if placed correctly, but require supply and supply can need to be defended from infantry. 

 

I think the biggest problem with balance is the misconception of players that as an infantry squad they should be able to go head to head with armor. The tricky balancing act of making infantry begin abel to cripple enemy vehicles, but still needing help from friendly armour, other squads or just keeping an ammo source nearby is almost perfect. It makes every AT shot count and makes you fear armor as infantry, but at the same time keeps armour at its toes, and at a distance in fear of engine damage and TOWs. 

 

An other thing I run into frequently is players that have little patience, from my experience with PR and squad the best moments take time build up. A lot of players seem to want the instant gratification of blow up a tank when they see one, but at least for me best feeling is when said tank has been pinning down my squad for an enemy attack and we have no chance of taking it down from our position. I call a friendly tank squad on who are on the other side of the map to come to the rescue before my position gets over run by infantry and I see them starting to make their way across the map.  At that point I know all we need to do to have a chance is to dig in and try to stay alive. I know there are a hundred of ways this can fail, but if it doesn't and my team comes out on top it's gonna feel so much better that just spotting a tank and destroying it battlefield style. Patience, for me is the key to enjoying squad. 

 

The key to defeating enemy armour is in team work, not just working with your squad, but working with your whole team. I feel like V12 is the first step towards a truly team based experience, rather than a squad based one. Just keep on marking those vehicles on the map and relaying info to your teammates, dig in and wait for friendly cavalry to come to the rescue.

 

 

I agree. Vehicles before were coffins. Sitting in a BTR was a bullet magnet and a death trap. Now it is something that can make a difference. Vehicles were only good for transport before. Now they are actually instruments of war and can lockdown a map as you say. Part of this though, was due to the map design which favored infantry before vehicles. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Laki said:

From my experience with V12 I feel at infantry vs armor balance is quite nice. Vehicles at range are a force to be feared as infantry and as they should can truly lock down a part of the map with decent visibility. Armor in close proximity gets decimated by infantry AT, not always destroyed, but disabled if you manage to get a engine hit on enemy armor, friendly armor has plenty of time to get to your position and finish the job. TOW one shots almost everything and can lock down huge parts of the map from enemy armor, if placed correctly, but require supply and need to be defended from infantry. 

 

I think the biggest problem with balance is the misconception of players that as an infantry squad they should be able to go head to head with armor. The tricky balancing act of making infantry begin abel to cripple enemy vehicles, but still needing help from friendly armour, other squads or just keeping an ammo source nearby is almost perfect. It makes every AT shot count and makes you fear armor as infantry, but at the same time keeps armour at its toes, and at a distance in fear of engine damage and TOWs. 

 

An other thing I run into frequently is players that have little patience, from my experience with PR and squad the best moments take time build up. A lot of players seem to want the instant gratification of blowing up a tank when they see one, but at least for me best experiences are when said tank has been pinning down my squad in preparation for an enemy infantry attack and we have no chance of taking it down from our position. I get on comms with a friendly tank squad who are on the other side of the map to come and rescue my squad before our position gets over run by infantry and I see them starting to make their way across the map.  At that point I know all we need to do to have a chance of winning is to dig in and try to stay alive. I know there are a hundred of ways this can fail, but if it doesn't and my team comes out on top it's gonna feel so much better that just spotting a tank and destroying it battlefield style. Patience, for me is the key to enjoying squad. 

 

The key to defeating enemy armour is in team work, not just working with your squad, but working with your whole team. I feel like V12 is the first step towards a truly team based experience, rather than a squad based one. Just keep on marking those vehicles on the map and relaying info to your teammates, dig in and wait for friendly cavalry to come to the rescue.

 

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×