Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Einen

Anti-tank and armour

Recommended Posts

Hello guys,

 

Please note that I'm not an native English speaker and my countryman aren't really known for their English's skills, so be nice with the numerous grammatical mistakes that you will see.

 

In my multiple game, i have noticed that most of the armour are reckless and often act alone. I believe this is due to armour being too tough : crewman roughly know how many AT hit their vehicle can endure and since the numbers is quite high, they think they are invulnerable. Sadly they never think neither about the mobility kills, or the possibility of falling inside a well organized ambush. In result they get smoked every time they face an organized squad.

 

You may think that the community will grow up and people will learn to stop this ... but let's face it, it's been a while since Devs had implemented the mobility kill and so far most people still act like this.

 

What I'm gonna propose it's to increase the damage done by LAT, HAT and maybe ATGM to reduce the toughness of armour vs infantry AND in the meantime reduce the number of AT in the field.

 

Reducing the number of Anti-tank :

 

Currently, this is your basic squad structure (9 man) :

- 1 SL,

- 2 medics,

- 2 LAT,

- 1 more support kit (often scopped AR for regular or marskman for irregular),

- 1 HAT/MG/Engineer,

- 2 rifleman,

 

Please note that :

- your squad is full,

- you don't have crewman (so no mech squad),

- you don't take several specialised kits (because that's not very friendly toward the other squads),

 

My proposal is to reduce the numbers of LAT available per squad to only 1.

 

That way, we will see more support kit like grenadier or dare I say marskman.

 

I don't think reducing the number of HAT it's necessary, at least right now. They are powerful, but can't be everywhere.

 

Increasing the damage of anti-tank :

 

To compensate this reduction of threat in the filed, I proposed to increased they damage. For example, see below the number of LAT needed to destroy several amour :

 

- BTR 80/82 : upper front/side 3 (but 2 make him slowly burning), lower front/side 2, back/top 1,

- striker : front 3, side 2, back/top 1,

- MRAP : front 2, side 2 (but 1 make burn), top /back 1,

- BRDM : upper front/side 2 (but 1 does more dmg than on a MRAP), lower front/side/top/back 1,

- IFV : thickest armour part 4 (but3 make burn), middle armour thick part 3, thin armour part 2,

- MBT : no change, I personally find adapted, people lost them mainly versus other MBT or well placed ATGM.

 

For the HAT versus APC/IFV, the idea will be globally that :

- one hit on the weakest part (top/back) should result on a kill,

- one hit on not so much armoured part (typically side) should result on making the vehicle slowly burn,

- 2 hit on the thickest amour should result on a kill (or slowly burn for the best armoured).

 

But Why ? vehicle will last as long or even longer with that

 

To increase the crewman's fear, it's just psychological. Right now people think "they need 3-4 LAT hits to kill me, if I take 2 hits, I will RTB and save the vehicle", but they never think about the mobility kill or simultaneous AT hit. Now they will know they are weaker, and hopefully will work more with the infantry and avoid getting shot in the back or side. That way if the vehicle stay with it's infantry i will feel way safer because his fellow teammates will protecting his flanks, the ways it's suppose to be.

 

Note that in my proposition vehicle are still very tough in "the front part", to avoid them getting "snipped" by skilled AT. They will get hit, but always be able to RTB.

 

What's about vehicle vs vehicle damage ?

 

Nothing, personally i find them overall quite well balanced (except bugging chopper that don't register correctly the damage but that's another problems).

 

That's why I'm proposing to increase AT damage and not reducing the armour or the health of the tank, to avoid messed up something that work.

 

Bonus point : supply consumption

 

I have read somewhere on this forum, that if we put that much FOB close to the flag, it's because we need ammo for the AT. Since I have read this, I have realize how much accurate this is.

 

AT need to much ammo for destroying an enemy vehicle that know how to play (meaning : that don't show his back and have his side covering by his infantry). Your rifleman can't bring him enough, so you need an ammo crate and you need it close, because if it's too far the amour will have to time to flee.

 

It's also mean that you always need a FOB to attack a flag, so if you flank to take the risk to get annihilated by an amour because you lack ammo to destroyed it. I have several example of getting blocked by lone-wolf armour despite scoring mobility kill on him, simply because we were too far from a supply point and have to make the way back to it.

 

Overall, I believe it will help infantry squad to flank more and incite vehicle to cooperate more with their infantry.

 

Note that I'm not saying that :

- cooperation between infantry and vehicle (or mech squads) don't exist, but admit it's rare, particularly on public server. I want to incite them to do it more often,

- vehicle are too strong : no, an well organized squad will roll over any lone-wolfing vehicle and will struggle versus a good mech squads like it's suppose to. Once again, I want to incite people in public server to play better and cooperating more,

 

I'm Lazy, please summarize

 

I'm proposing to increase LAT and HAT damage deal to amour, but only one LAT will be available per squad. That's way, I hope crewman will fear more LAT and HAT, stay safer and cooperate with their infantry more.

Edited by Einen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this. I do think AT should be more limited but more devastating against vehicles. However to balance that i also think that anti-infantry rounds from 25-125mm guns should have their damage and blast radious increased. Since i want IFV's and tanks to be really scary for infantry, but on the other hand also quickly dealt with if they're prepared to take them on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rockets like the RPG-7 have very little chance to seriously damage a modern MBT from any angle, except the top maybe. So having them only being able to destroy tracks and engines on tanks is fine. As for IFV:s its a different matter, where 1-2 Hits can be fatal. But crew injuries are not modeled in game and that is kind of the issue, irl a penetration of a HEAT rocket would be very unpleasant and likely result in the crew abandoning the vehicle. So imo this is the thing that should be addressed. The AT weapons in themselves arent too badly modeled but the effect on the crew are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pluto is a planet said:

Rockets like the RPG-7 have very little chance to seriously damage a modern MBT from any angle, except the top maybe. So having them only being able to destroy tracks and engines on tanks is fine. As for IFV:s its a different matter, where 1-2 Hits can be fatal. But crew injuries are not modeled in game and that is kind of the issue, irl a penetration of a HEAT rocket would be very unpleasant and likely result in the crew abandoning the vehicle. So imo this is the thing that should be addressed. The AT weapons in themselves arent too badly modeled but the effect on the crew are. 

RPG-7 is the launcher.  There are more-advanced warheads available today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armor is dying fast when yoloing, not fearing to die even though they already died multiple times.
Let's make it so they die even faster.
Armor is dying even faster when yoloing, not fearing to die even though they already died multiple times.

Why do you think anything will change?

Increasing TTK, requiring multiple rockets to kill armor gives ability to focus fire and teamwork to archive the kill, so yoloing AT doesn't get rewarded, while organized AT team does. Being able to cover damaged vehicle with supporting squads, repair mobility, fall back to repair station and fully repair there is teamwork based activities too. That's mechanics encouraging teamwork and how it is supposed to be. And your suggestion will eliminate all of that

In the past (~v11), damage model was what you described, and vehicles had much higher ticket cost. I doubt anyone have proper stats to compare, but IMO AT work requires more coordination now compared to what it was then, and even now I dislike 1 man HATs lone-wolfing and destroying heavier armor without even need to resupply.

Edited by paragonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, paragonid said:


In the past (~v11), damage model was what you described, and vehicles had much higher ticket cost. I doubt anyone have proper stats to compare, but IMO AT work requires more coordination now compared to what it was then, and even now I dislike 1 man HATs lone-wolfing and destroying heavier armor without even need to resupply.

That's the whole reason HAT exists - to blow up enemy armor.   What do you expect HAT to do?  Wait until enemy armor drop off a squad and try to take it out while armor is surrounded by enemy infantry?

(side note: RPG-29 is totally Halal, being basically the only one that is sure to kill something with two big rockets without relying on random ammorack that may not even exist)

In the past LAT would basically one-shot APC from behind and that was clearly cancerous from both gameplay and realism standpoint, but otherwise it was still better than this.

Eventually vehicles are going to start getting FLIR...etc. so it's only logical to upgrade AT weapon power.

Current TTK is way too high (imagine taking two LAT hits and survive in BRDM-2; happened to me on both sides, I even got to drive back to base with BRDM-2) especially for less-armored vehicles such as MATV(take one HAT and crew survives...) and BRDM-2.
This made those vehicles much more enticing as one-man vehicles that is the exact opposite of teamwork.
(considering the amount of teamwork needed to destroy it, including having to rearm via rifleman or nearby fob vs. the lack of teamwork needed to function at near 100% capability)

Also, even with rearms...it takes forever to kill a noob one-manning uparmored warrior(iirc at least 8 rpg-7 HEAT and it's still not dead).

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, paragonid said:

In the past (~v11), damage model was what you described, and vehicles had much higher ticket cost. I doubt anyone have proper stats to compare, but IMO AT work requires more coordination now compared to what it was then, and even now I dislike 1 man HATs lone-wolfing and destroying heavier armor without even need to resupply.

I can get wrong, but in V11 we already got 2 LAT per squad right ? This is why i want to reduce their numbers. The idea is on squad can only deal with one vehicle and then need a full resupply. LAT need the ammo bag (or an hab) to destroy an APC/IFV.

 

I personally don't mind AT team (LAT+HAT+1/2 rifleman for the covering/resupply) hunting armour, it's teamwork based and not that OP. Every time i get destroy as an APC, it was because i made a mistake, either i was staying too long on one spot, or I was too far from my infantry, or I try to duel and heavier amour. I sometime get detracked with my infantry around, manage to repair and fall back.

 

I agree with Ecchi concerning the TTK being too long, i have seen too much noobs-IFV alone holding a spot during 5-10 min because our AT need to make his way back to the fob to rearm.

 

And I don't consider the current situation really "Teamwork oriented", what happen usually look like this :

Noobarmour attack the flag alone, get 2 LAT hit, fall back (note that this one is smarter than the average).

Noobarmour : please Sq1 build a repair station on your HAB

Sq 1: ok, done

Noobarmour, repair then go back to the exact same spot, take 1 LAT hit, get mobility kill, then get smoked by a swarm of AT.

 

Result, they did nothing, they take Sq 1 supply and waste an asset, their is no teamwork in this situation. And they did it, because they were thinking they were invincible.

 

However, I can understand that be able to one shot APC/IFC with a LAT (back or top hit) is bad. One solution could be that 1 back hit would deal around 75% damage on the APC trigging the red alert on the crewman's head and forcing them to RTB. Bonus, if the attacking squad cooperate with another APC, he could ambush them when he try to RTB, getting an easy kill.

21 hours ago, Pluto is a planet said:

But crew injuries are not modeled in game

I like this, but i haven't see in the Beta 17 notes from Game designer that they plan to do something similar. So I guess we must do with the current system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was answering Ecchi, but realized how much effort is required to address even simplest of his demagogue statements, and gave up. He bases big parts of his opinions on appeal to feelings, e.g. "Imagine taking 2 LATs in BRDM and survive", well I imagine, so what? I don't see a problem in it. BRDM costs 5 tickets and have 5 minutes respawn (konkurs 10+10), so I only find it fair. Needing to go back to main to repair can take more than that on top, effectively taking away the crewman from the combat. Repair station frontline takes teamwork and ticket investment. IMO there are enough justifying factors to have it that way, he disagrees, but what is his argument for it? IMAGINING MAH FEELINGS. So yeah, never read his messages again. Here's what I have to do to address just one line without straight ignoring it:
 

Spoiler

Same whole point of LAT existing, why are they supposed to be different?
The whole point rifle/pistol/knife exist: to kill enemy infantry. Should they 1-hit everything?
The whole point body armor exists is to safe from enemy bullets. Should it prevent all damage?
The whole point death exist, so you don't shoot back. Should there be no respawns? 

Just because the whole point of something existing is to do something, it doesn't mean anything except that. Literally. So why are you using it as an argument?


> "because our AT need to make his way back to the fob to rearm."
Then your squad is noob itself. You are supposed to have vehicle to resupply nearby / ammo crate / rifleman, not run back 150m+. 1 AT + rifleman is capable of 75% damage to lighter vehicles, where 1 shot is enough for a mobility kill and 1-2 shots for turret locking.

Even bigger part of solution, if your HAT is reacting to armor contact properly, then it's already a nightmare for the armor to stay in the same area. But most of HAT users/squads are just hoarding it because they can, while their only work should be to engage armor closest to own squads, lonewolf hunt / do infantrymen work with it.
Except the Russians. Russian HAT is piece of shit xD

Noobarmour attack the flag alone, get 2 LAT hit

Then 2 LATs were noobs themselves. Mobility kill is extremely easy and everyone should be able to do it on lonely armor
Don't balance the game for noobs vs noobs.
Needing to go back to repair station is already requiring teamwork, so teamwork is there. But not on the APC part.
If we follow you suggestion, from what I understand you expect more teamwork because APC will die faster? I would say if someone who wants to rush enemy flag alone and doesn't care for dying, it's hard to expect any teamwork from them anyway.
And again just because they will die faster, while they think they are invincible, it won't change their behavior in any way. It's not the problem of TTK, but it's a problem of what they think they are invincible, and if they don't learn from dying that it's false, dying faster won't change it.

In the current implementation of maps + how AT weapon works in Squad, vehicles either have to snipe from 400+ meters or they will get shot at least from sides. Having vehicles as 400+ snipers (that's how it worked in A11) is pretty limiting gameplay

Edited by paragonid

Share this post


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

I was answering Ecchi, but realized how much effort is required to address even simplest of his demagogue statements, and gave up. He bases big parts of his opinions on appeal to feelings, e.g. "Imagine taking 2 LATs in BRDM and survive", well I imagine, so what? I don't see a problem in it. BRDM costs 5 tickets and have 5 minutes respawn (konkurs 10+10), so I only find it fair. Needing to go back to main to repair can take more than that on top, effectively taking away the crewman from the combat. Repair station frontline takes teamwork and ticket investment. IMO there are enough justifying factors to have it that way, he disagrees, but what is his argument for it? IMAGINING MAH FEELINGS. So yeah, never read his messages again. Here's what I have to do to address just one line without straight ignoring it:

  Reveal hidden contents

Same whole point of LAT existing, why are they supposed to be different?
The whole point rifle/pistol/knife exist: to kill enemy infantry. Should they 1-hit everything?
The whole point body armor exists is to safe from enemy bullets. Should it prevent all damage?
The whole point death exist, so you don't shoot back. Should there be no respawns? 

Just because the whole point of something existing is to do something, it doesn't mean anything except that. Literally. So why are you using it as an argument?

You know you have no valid response when you try to accuse me of arguing from feelings despite hard data presented.

1. taking 2 LATs - that's both of a squad's LATs assuming no resupply, one-manned BRDM can just sit there and there's nothing a full squad can do if it didn't hit any component hitbox(it doesn't need to go back to main to repair because there's nothing more you can do to it with a full squad).  Then again you're probably going to desperately try to claim you can shoot/stab the tires.

2. Only 5 tickets + 1 in case that one-crewman dies vs. potential to do much more(considering it has a closed turret with decent sights, though main gun is nerfed heavily).  That's a lot of "teamwork" vs. one guy.

3. building something takes *soooooooo* much effort, according to you - when you try to justify your shoddy narrative.

"MAH FEELINGS" - projection never got you anywhere.

21 hours ago, EcchiRevenge said:

That's the whole reason HAT exists - to blow up enemy armor.   What do you expect HAT to do?  Wait until enemy armor drop off a squad and try to take it out while armor is surrounded by enemy infantry?
 

Funny how @paragonid conveniently ignores this despite this being the first line of my post.  He spent all that time trying to justify him ignoring what he can't argue against, even trying to cherrypick the only line he can make up shit to talk back to, and failed miserably.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, paragonid said:
  Reveal hidden contents

Same whole point of LAT existing, why are they supposed to be different?
The whole point rifle/pistol/knife exist: to kill enemy infantry. Should they 1-hit everything?
The whole point body armor exists is to safe from enemy bullets. Should it prevent all damage?
The whole point death exist, so you don't shoot back. Should there be no respawns? 

Just because the whole point of something existing is to do something, it doesn't mean anything except that. Literally. So why are you using it as an argument?


Even bigger part of solution, if your HAT is reacting to armor contact properly, then it's already a nightmare for the armor to stay in the same area. But most of HAT users/squads are just hoarding it because they can, while their only work should be to engage armor closest to own squads, lonewolf hunt / do infantrymen work with it.
Except the Russians. Russian HAT is piece of shit xD


Then 2 LATs were noobs themselves. Mobility kill is extremely easy and everyone should be able to do it on lonely armor

1. only NOOBs *react* to armor; because only noob armor stays still enough for HAT, on foot, to sneak up to it.(exceptions apply when literally anybody has better HAT than Russians as they can more reliably hit stuff at range)
2. complaining about "lonewolf hunt" is the exact type of thing I already shut you down on(to the point where you avoided responding to my comment).
It's called *proactively* engaging enemy armor by setting up ambushes where armor *would-be*, not try to run with your weak little legs to where it *was* last seen.
3. mobility kills are only "extremely easy" on BTRs as it only takes one rocket and is in a logical spot(the rear, where you should be shooting from anyway).
Ironically when engine is placed on front for almost every other vehicle, it's less *easy* as you can't shoot it from the basically-unarmored rear(if you can't flank - stop being n00b).  Somehow the magic-armor(numbered in its IRL estimated effectiveness in RHA that already took into account the slope from horizontal) + slope(which further improves that number to something that may resist LATs) of western IFVs likes to bounce off LAT hits; so most opportunities are from sideshots in which case it's better to just go for ammorack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crew injuries would need to allow bandaging inside vic. 

Balancing AT vs VIC without this would be impossible as the crew would have to survive long enough to get out and bandage. They should be able to remain protected from small arms.

I'd like to be able to put a fire out inside but not make other repairs. So damaged components would require repair from outside with the risk but killing the people hiding inside a disabled vic should require a bit more effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily.

Bleed rate is already very generous; considering the speed of vehicles and the fact that they can put out a lot of smoke, there is no problem.

Squad tanks already have 4-armed loaders(able to load the main gun while firing loader machinegun).

Also, tanks are supposed to have internal extinguishers.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, paragonid said:

> "because our AT need to make his way back to the fob to rearm."

Then your squad is noob itself. You are supposed to have vehicle to resupply nearby / ammo crate / rifleman, not run back 150m+. 1 AT + rifleman is capable of 75% damage to lighter vehicles, where 1 shot is enough for a mobility kill and 1-2 shots for turret locking.

And it's because of this we need 3 fob to manage and attack and the game look like 2 castles launching troops at each other. We have to keep a constant flux of ammo for dealing with amour completely obliterating any serious attack without a hab behind or any other source of supply than your 2 riflemans.

18 hours ago, paragonid said:

And again just because they will die faster, while they think they are invincible, it won't change their behavior in any way. It's not the problem of TTK, but it's a problem of what they think they are invincible, and if they don't learn from dying that it's false, dying faster won't change it.

Simply by analogy with RTS.

 

Take company of heroes 2 for example : vanilla game is pretty arcadish, a medium armour need 4-5 AT hit to die, so here what's happens :

- noob player think is king tiger is invulnerable, push with it alone, get detracked (which is pure randomess on this game), get smoked by every AT his opponent have,

- veteran player know this, so his king tiger push covered by his infantry to recon and clear AT first,

 

Now take spearhead mod, which is an hardcore/realistic mod for COH2, medium armour need 1-2 AT to die, get often critically hit (detracked, gun destroyed or even ammo rack explosions). After a few hours on this mod, even the noob player realize that his tank isn't invulnerable and he can't just push only with it. I hope it will be the same on Squad.

 

With very stupid people, at some point it's become intentional waste of asset, admin can get involve. The first time i have take an APC in PR I get unassign because i waste it, it never happens again, I'm always careful when handling assets.

12 hours ago, EcchiRevenge said:

(if you can't flank - stop being n00b).

You can always flank because the vehicle stay for half an hour alone shooting from his little hill, I don't consider it normal that you can always sneak up undetected on his back and i have done it way too much often. It's my biggest problem with player behaviour and I really think this is strongly encourage by the number of hit needed for destroying even a light amour (remember MBT are off-topic).

 

18 hours ago, paragonid said:

(that's how it worked in A11

I have to insist on this, because it's look like a misunderstanding, contrary to V11 they will be half the number of AT in game, this is

to avoid an AT-sniperfest competition, knowing that ingame AT are very precise and because i agree that in V11 the moment a vehicle show up he was welcomed by several rocket. Also if it's the number of shoot needed on the tough spot that worry you, i don't mind letting it like the current version, it's not the point of the suggestion. I'm really bother by the toughness of amour on the side and back, not the front.

 

Edited by Einen

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
Sign in to follow this  

×