PDA

View Full Version : v1.0 Tanks


Prevtzer
2013-08-02, 20:16
Feedback on Tanks in the new version:
-HE rounds seem to do way less damage
-HE and AP rounds are less accurate (couldn't hit a standing man at 500m, it just missed)
-all armour is way too silent, had a Bradley sneak up 250m away from me without hearing it

I'll think of more.

K4on
2013-08-03, 01:18
edit:

As some people mentioned their issues with the Tank Armor System, I thought Ill give you an example how it works in 1.0.36.0:

7eehRJqpymc


Basically you could say that from strong to weak the armour has following order:
FRONT/TURRET > SIDE/TRACKS > REAR/TOP

M1A2 Example
http://i.imgur.com/gJHsLn8.jpg


Be advised that the invidual tank models have slightly differences in their setup, so the models do not look like always the same. One-Shoting a modern MBT is not possible in PR, but a well placed AP round at the rear or two front shots can cause the enemy tank to be disabled in some form for example.

Prevtzer
2013-08-03, 10:08
K4on;1926626']1. against what? vs soft targets? vs armored targets? as vs softtargets it is quite the opposite.
2. yes, true - to be discussed
3. yes, true

1. Splash damage against infantry, sometimes the round just does no damage to people standing <5m away from the blast point.

I thought of another one:
4. The coaxial gun is a lot moire realistic now, IRL it's used to suppress infantry that gets too close to the tank and in 1.0 it's pretty much useless over some distance (just like IRL). The problem with that is that IRL modern tanks are fitted with another weapon station for commander to use and that one is a whole lot more effective than a simple coaxial gun. In PR there's no such thing, so having a coaxial gun that's able to suppress infantry at some distance makes sense, as it represents balance between ineffective coaxial gun and commander's weapon station.

WilberLopez
2013-08-03, 10:36
I think that is not gonna happen either..

TheShaydeeOne
2013-08-03, 23:21
I had a full round in the Chinese MBT yesterday which went pretty well. The HE splash seemed perfectly fine against infantry. I had no problems hitting targets with the main gun, I had a few AP rounds hit infantry targets at around 300-400 metres and had confirmed kills for them. Didn't seem to deviate much at all. Coax was the same, after a minute or two of getting used to where the drop was on the sight it was easy to adjust and knock some heads.

Vehicle sounds I can't attest to as most of our combat was done at extreme ranges, but my driver didn't seem to have any problems with the standard engine cutting tactic.

Edit: This was only one round though. I haven't got too into tanking yet.

viirusiiseli
2013-08-03, 23:33
APC/TANK HE rounds really do seem less able. E.g. on Yamalia my gunner shot a T90 HE round into the feet of a canadian and he or the people in a 5-10m radius did not die.

Also agree with prevtzer on the sounds. Not sure if bug or feedback but the MEC/Russian shipunov 30mm cannon wrecks LAV-25/AAVP in <5 seconds of full auto fire. Completely over powered.

The drop on the coax is a bit too big though imo. I apperciate the realism but it could do with a bit less drop so it would maintain it's usefulness in some sense while being not too effective.

nAyo
2013-08-03, 23:36
3. Way too quiet, couldn't hear a tank 600m from me while it was actually possible before, and while it is supposed to be super loud IRL.

Why has armor been overhauled anyway? it was perfectly fine and no one ever complained about it, I don't get it.

TheSilencer
2013-08-03, 23:51
As a very experienced ground vehicle gunner, I can say that the HE rounds have been nerfed quite heavily (against infantry and light vehicles e.x. BRDM). I've been testing this versus the bots on a variety of maps such as Kashan. HE rounds I think have a significantly smaller blast radius and do less damage.

HE rounds should be able to one shot an APC quite effectively or at least get it dark smoke and possibly burning.

Also, a bug I'd like to report (on Co-op) are the T-72's on Kashan have a gap of space big enough for an SABOT round to fit through and miss the tank completely. The gap is in between the turret and main body, and is visible.

I love the new coax, much improved from the Beta.

Vehicles are WAY to silent. I could barely hear the Bradley on Kokan from 75m away. It was so quiet. I could understand the stryker vehicle being as silent as it is, because it is like that IRL. But tracked vehicles are much, MUCH louder. Many vehicles are way to quiet now.

As an extremely experienced CAS Spotter, I mainly use my ears (ironic since I'm a spotter) to locate vehicles over long distances, but now that vehicles are so much quieter, that will be a very hard task to do on any map, especially Bijar where a DLOS is harder to obtain.

I love all the new models, all very sexy, and the Coax. So good.

DesmoLocke
2013-08-04, 09:26
There is also a bug on Khamisiyah while crewing Abrams tanks on the Standard 3 jet layer. On more than one occasion (I would say 5 times to be exact) we lost a two man tank crew to CTD. Chrisweb and Bluedrake can chime in here too if they feel like because they can vouch for it. It was rather annoying. Both the gunner and driver would CTD at the same time leaving their tank stranded.

We couldn't nail down why it happened though.

nAyo
2013-08-04, 14:11
BMP3 is way too strong (one tank AP shell + 50 Scimitar AP rounds and doesn't even smoke), SCORPION can't kill APCs, BEAST destroys APCs with 5 AP rounds, and so on.

Armored vehicles have been completely fucked up. It was completely unnecessary (and not even asked) to overhaul them and though it has been done. Why do DEVs not just focus on broken things/new things instead of randomly changing shit that has always been working, or at least that used to work well?

I hope it is going to be worked on, because right now it's really ridiculous, it makes no sense :|

viirusiiseli
2013-08-04, 16:09
Vehicles have been completely fucked up.

I hope it is going to be worked on, because right now it's really ridiculous, it makes no sense :|

Can confirm all of what nayo said.

Skitrel
2013-08-04, 16:15
3. Way too quiet, couldn't hear a tank 600m from me while it was actually possible before, and while it is supposed to be super loud IRL.

Why has armor been overhauled anyway? it was perfectly fine and no one ever complained about it, I don't get it.

We had a tank get physically inside a compound our infantry were defending before it was even noticed because a friendly BMP was making more noise than it 2 grid squares away.

Tanks definitely need upping in the engine sound department, they should be heard quite clearly from long range.

Prevtzer
2013-08-04, 16:35
Agree with others. 1.0 is supposed to be this huge release that changes everything, but a lot of things (including armour) were generally great in the previous releases. All you should've done was to fix the commander's view where he sees all the shells go way above the target, try to improve motion stabilization and make tanks more versatile and different between each other. But instead you made some completely un-called for changes that are broken.
And then there are all the new "cool" effects, animations and models, which are great, but it doesn't really matter since huge number of people (me included) have to run the game on all low settings now, where everything looks like shit and we still get much lower fps than in previous versions.
And many of these bugs (gunner gets stuck when exiting Leclerc, APC that can swim still takes damage in water, all armour is way too quiet etc) are just so damn obvious that I really don't know what the hell testers were doing. Did nobody try exiting the Leclerc's gunner position? Really? Did nobody listen to a single piece of armour on any map? Come on...
Yes, this post is affected by rage, but it really is that bad.

Jolly
2013-08-04, 16:37
LAV's way too quiet... That's wat I've found

TheSilencer
2013-08-04, 18:48
Just played kamaisiyah on USMC. Drove a LAV around, snuck up on 3 infantry who were literally 10m away.

TheSilencer
2013-08-04, 18:49
I really did think that ground vehicles were SO PERFECT in .98. So perfect.

Amrikirpgwarhead
2013-08-04, 18:51
I shoot 75ap rounds on a btr80a and he survived and he killed us

viirusiiseli
2013-08-04, 18:52
0.98 vehicles worked excellent when crewed by a very skilled crew. Which was perfect. Now it's luck and OP vehicles that have nothing to do with skill.

nAyo
2013-08-04, 18:55
Agree with others. 1.0 is supposed to be this huge release that changes everything, but a lot of things (including armour) were generally great in the previous releases. All you should've done was to fix the commander's view where he sees all the shells go way above the target, try to improve motion stabilization and make tanks more versatile and different between each other. But instead you made some completely un-called for changes that are broken.
And then there are all the new "cool" effects, animations and models, which are great, but it doesn't really matter since huge number of people (me included) have to run the game on all low settings now, where everything looks like shit and we still get much lower fps than in previous versions.
And many of these bugs (gunner gets stuck when exiting Leclerc, APC that can swim still takes damage in water, all armour is way too quiet etc) are just so damn obvious that I really don't know what the hell testers were doing. Did nobody try exiting the Leclerc's gunner position? Really? Did nobody listen to a single piece of armour on any map? Come on...
Yes, this post is affected by rage, but it really is that bad.
I second that.

Anyway, today armour experiences :
# 1 abrams AP shell on a BMP2 didn't do anything
# 3 abrams AP shells on a T72 didn't even track it or disable its turret
# 4 times during the same round : 1 abram AP shell on a BTR80 made it burn when it should clearly instantly annihilate it.

Ie, one AP shell on tank's turret :
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/images/figf1.gif

Rhino
2013-08-04, 18:59
Agree with others. 1.0 is supposed to be this huge release that changes everything, but a lot of things (including armour) were generally great in the previous releases. All you should've done was to fix the commander's view where he sees all the shells go way above the target, try to improve motion stabilization and make tanks more versatile and different between each other. But instead you made some completely un-called for changes that are broken.
And then there are all the new "cool" effects, animations and models, which are great, but it doesn't really matter since huge number of people (me included) have to run the game on all low settings now, where everything looks like shit and we still get much lower fps than in previous versions.
And many of these bugs (gunner gets stuck when exiting Leclerc, APC that can swim still takes damage in water, all armour is way too quiet etc) are just so damn obvious that I really don't know what the hell testers were doing. Did nobody try exiting the Leclerc's gunner position? Really? Did nobody listen to a single piece of armour on any map? Come on...
Yes, this post is affected by rage, but it really is that bad.

PR:BF2 Community Modding - Project Reality Forums (https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-pr-bf2-community-modding)

Your more than welcome to fix them up yourself.

Prevtzer
2013-08-04, 19:21
Rhino;1928177']PR:BF2 Community Modding - Project Reality Forums (https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-pr-bf2-community-modding)

Your more than welcome to fix them up yourself.

Well, the thing is, Rhino, that there was nothing to fix in these departments, so whoever did this changes just screwed up, badly.

Tarranauha200
2013-08-04, 21:12
M113 survived AP hit from tank, Puma took 30-40 rounds of AP to side armor from chinese APC without even starting to smoke.

40mmrain
2013-08-04, 21:32
the Puma in real life has stellar armour, it really should be shrugging off 30mm like a tank. ATGMs still take it to school, though. I'm all for realistic damage and armour values, though theyre not all that realistic. I still wonder why 14.5mm can damage a warrior and other IFVs.

http://www.psm-spz.com/fileadmin/data/data_sheet_protection.pdf

says that front and flanks are protected well from "medium calibre", greater than 14.5mm. REfers to cannon calibres 20mm-30mm.

Felix
2013-08-04, 22:05
Everything was fine before except one-shot spots.

K4on
2013-08-05, 01:24
Make sure to also posts the spots where you hit the enemy. There are major differences between rear, side, front, turret and track armour. 3x 120mm AP hits vs front isn't the same as 3x 120mm hits at the rear of one vehicle for example.

Videos are also a very welcome way to provide us feedback, makes our developing progress much easier. ;)

The Puma is a heavy APC as 40mm rain said already. Front and Side armor can withstand even 30mm rounds.
And yes in general the front armour of many APCs has increased, to simulate the reinforced armor & the angle of the front.

But yeah, we will take care and have a look at the given feedback.
Thanks for reporting.

Prevtzer
2013-08-05, 15:11
K4on;1928421']Make sure to also posts the spots where you hit the enemy. There are major differences between rear, side, front, turret and track armour. 3x 120mm AP hits vs front isn't the same as 3x 120mm hits at the rear of one vehicle for example.

Videos are also a very welcome way to provide us feedback, makes our developing progress much easier. ;)

The Puma is a heavy APC as 40mm rain said already. Front and Side armor can withstand even 30mm rounds.
And yes in general the front armour of many APCs has increased, to simulate the reinforced armor & the angle of the front.

But yeah, we will take care and have a look at the given feedback.
Thanks for reporting.

Yeah, Puma was always like that. About the hits:
-LAV-25 died only after 2 AP tank shells- 1 to the front, 1 to the turret
-a watch tower survived 2 direct HE tank shells
-multiple people survived direct HE and/ or AP tank shells
-multiple people survived HE tank shells detonating less than 5m away from them

In general, the armour damage system used to be pretty great in 0.98 and it'd be great to have it back, because it's completely broken now. Or at least give us info on how it currently "works" and we could help.

a3dboy1
2013-08-09, 03:26
You know I can personally point out the same people bashing and ranting about 1.0 and telling how "perfect" 0.98 was..About anything. may it be sounds, models, textures, RPs, FOBs, increased player server compacity, improved physics, damage system, RPs again etc.

The worst part of it is that most of all negative feedback comes from the same people. And by negative I mean really non-constructive ranting which is annoying to read.

I do not vote for praising 1.0 but I personally want to read constructive feedback and I think Devs also would appreciate if you do your research before instead of posting wall of rage text.

I really suggest you to launch 0.97 again and compare the gameplay instead of living in your imagionary world.

I played a couple of rounds as Tank Gunner in 1.0 and 0.98. What I noticed is that Tank vs Tank is more "forgiving" as you don't instantly blow up after one shot but need to take 3 or even sometimes 4 in order to blow up. The same goes for Infantry combat now as Infantry can withstand couple of direct hits from rifle. The same goes for Grenadier launcher which doesn't wound everything in 15m area anymore but requires direct hit on the character in order to make him "wounded". Meanwhile I could easily blow up enemy MEC APCs with AP shells.

Stop comparing 1.0 to the game what you wasted your life on in order to learn all the glitches and bugs and enjoy new enchanced experience.

Stealthgato
2013-08-10, 14:24
A complaint about the T-72 - it's off-road capabilities are downright terrible, it's getting bogged down by every single bump and it doesn't appear to have power on its actual tracks. On the screenshots below, the tank was completely immobile even though both tracks are clearly touching the ground (had many more situations like this):

http://i.imgur.com/v2WclOA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0CL4ITU.jpg

Rudd
2013-08-10, 14:55
A complaint about the T-72 - it's off-road capabilities are downright terrible, it's getting bogged down by every single bump and it doesn't appear to have power on its actual tracks. On the screenshots below, the tank was completely immobile even though both tracks are clearly touching the ground (had many more situations like this):

http://i.imgur.com/v2WclOA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0CL4ITU.jpg

I'll never understand why people post this kind of stuff in feedback instead of bugs

Hurricane
2013-08-11, 17:33
You know I can personally point out the same people bashing and ranting about 1.0 and telling how "perfect" 0.98 was..About anything. may it be sounds, models, textures, RPs, FOBs, increased player server compacity, improved physics, damage system, RPs again etc.

The worst part of it is that most of all negative feedback comes from the same people. And by negative I mean really non-constructive ranting which is annoying to read.

I do not vote for praising 1.0 but I personally want to read constructive feedback and I think Devs also would appreciate if you do your research before instead of posting wall of rage text.

I really suggest you to launch 0.97 again and compare the gameplay instead of living in your imagionary world.


How is it bashing if a couple of people point out that armored warfare was better in 0.9x?
PR 1.0 is a great release and I enjoy the shit out of it, but I really don't like some of these changes. It appears that either APFSDS damage against MBTs has been reduced greatly, or tanks simply are better armored than before. Either way, I don't like this change.

Yesterday I played on Marlin in the Leclerc and the T72 ate 3 AP shells (2x front, 1x side) and just drove off, then we managed to cut him off and finally blow him up with the 4th shell (side hit again). Just a couple of minutes later we got in a battle with the second T72, we've been spotted and hit first, but somehow managed to destroy him ... After a 40 seconds firefight that pretty much consisted of two tanks standing in front of each other, with no real way to retreat, shooting each other repeatedly.

It honestly felt like vanilla BF2 again. If PR was going the uber-realistic way MBTs would be destroyed on the first hit. All modern MBTs can penetrate each others armor with sabots, especially on ranges such as in PR. Now I think this would be game-breaking, but the damage model as in 0.9x felt pretty balanced. Two side hits or three to the front pretty much always destroyed an enemy tank. This gave an advantage to the crew who spotted and engaged enemy armor first but still allowed for some tactical maneuvers that could change the outcome of a tank battle. I haven't seen a single tank that got tracked or had a turret failure in 1.0 so far. I miss this, because now it just feels like tanks are sponges that will absorb everything until they finally blow up at some point.

I really do think you guys should consider going back to the 0.9x damage model because imo, armor vs. armor is less interesting now and it just doesn't feel right for a game such as PR.

Tarranauha200
2013-08-11, 20:38
1-hit one kill would not be game-breaking. It would simply mean that the people with better intel and tactics would win every time.

KEIOS
2013-08-12, 11:22
are there still any one hit one kill spots on tanks like they used to be in 0.9?

K4on
2013-08-12, 12:09
if you are speaking of the glass issue (like one-hitting the tank by shooting at the lights or at the camera) - no

[GER]Birnd
2013-08-12, 16:34
Got killed as Tank by a BMP2 AT Rocket 2s after it took a AP Shell in the front.
The BMP2 was still operational after.

Quote Wikipedia:
"The BMP-2's armour is broadly similar to the original BMP-1. Its frontal and side armour is not effective against the most recent .50-calibre SLAP [Sabotted light anti-armour projectile] and the 25 mm cannon of the US M2 Bradley MICV or the British GKN Warrior IFV's 30 mm RARDEN."

Kerryburgerking
2013-08-14, 00:35
What people don't take in to consideration is that HEAT rounds were made to ignite the ammunition in the AFV and not kill the crew per say. And if you were to be even more realistic then the SPG-9/2A28 wouldn't be able to destroy tanks since the caliber and grenades are way underpowered.

Imdruid
2013-08-14, 05:33
Alright time for me to report the Broken T-72

Okay i don't know if you intended to make it unable to climb, but it can't. Especially on Operation Marlin. I can not climb on it at with the T-72. Then not only that if i approach at the wrong angle at a base of a hill i can get stuck on that hill. Seriously broken as hell. Pardon me being a bit upset, but as someone who has spent countless hours in armor and in tanks in general. No let me correct that, i have spent 100s of hours in this game and 100s of hours in armor. And from what i remember the T-72 used to be able to climb rather well. Please fix that.

And as for tanks being quite, i agree. I can no longer listen to where a tank is. Actually scratch that i can only find a tank when i have a whole squad looking for it. This is while the tank and my squad are in a city. Example would be on the map Burning sands, I can get out of my driver seat to turn the engine off and listen for a tank that is two blocks away from me and moving and still not hear it. Please fix that.

Also AP rounds and HE rounds do not do enough damage. I took 2 AP rounds from an enemy tank and was not even smoking white. That is nonsense. The guy may have been using HE rounds but even then at 2 rounds in a should have been at least white smoke. I should mention i took the 2 rounds in the side armor. But either it could be the difference in the spots that are being hit. Please fix that. Which if it is i enjoy the new armor system, But wouldn't hitting someone in the turret do more damage than just hitting the front armor?

EliteOperator01
2013-08-14, 06:08
Rhino;1928177']PR:BF2 Community Modding - Project Reality Forums (https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-pr-bf2-community-modding)

Your more than welcome to fix them up yourself.

Great attitude . You are the DEV, it is your job, not his to maintain the quality of this mod.

Ratface
2013-08-14, 06:16
What he means is that the devs are in short supply, so if you want to see fixes and such then jump on the bandwagon and help fix issues. Just because something worked in .98 doesn't mean you can instantly change back things when so many other changes have been implemented into vehicles.

You guys act like they are never going to fix things. They are working, just give the devs time and be patient. They have lives to live as well, not to mention other major issues beyond vehicle game play that is more urgent to the mod.

/end rant :D

Prevtzer
2013-08-14, 08:14
What he means is that the devs are in short supply, so if you want to see fixes and such then jump on the bandwagon and help fix issues. Just because something worked in .98 doesn't mean you can instantly change back things when so many other changes have been implemented into vehicles.

You guys act like they are never going to fix things. They are working, just give the devs time and be patient. They have lives to live as well, not to mention other major issues beyond vehicle game play that is more urgent to the mod.

/end rant :D

Lol relax, it's a feedback thread. Gotta love this dev white knights...

Mikemonster
2013-08-14, 10:05
Out of interest is there any reflection of that theory that I've heard kicking around about Sabot/AP rounds cleanly going into one side and out of the other side of a soft skinned or lightly armoured vehicle?

I.e. A 'vanilla' aluminium M113 takes a sabot shell from a T72, but receives no damage because it was shot in the rear compartment and the shell penetrated one side cleanly, passed through the [empty] compartment, penetrated the OTHER side, and carried straight on out into thin air beyond.

Obviously a fairly rare occurence, but if it has been represented (if it is even possible 'IRL') could that explain how certain APC's seem invulnerable?

In which case, if firing a Sabot shell is it possible to aim for the engine?

Mikemonster
2013-08-14, 10:30
Regarding the effect of a Sabot on an APC, see the following site (sources given in notes at bottom).

TAB H -- Friendly-fire Incidents (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm)

Getting hit by an M1A1 sabot doesn't mean an instant kill for a Bradley, apparently. Lots of them drove afterwards. Bradley's that were full of soldiers were penetrated by sabots that passed through the compartment yet only killed one or a few of the guys inside. Not nice, I'll grant, but PR doesn't reflect this - Worth pointing out next time someone complains a vehicle didn't explode.

Effects of the sabots on Abrams' were similar - Tank put out of action & eventually set on fire, with crews badly wounded, however no catastrophic detonation of the tank (unlike the T-55 pic given above).

(This account of an Abrams that was hit includes a TOW from a Bradley hitting the engine compartment followed by a sabot that penetrated the turret and exited through the other side:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en383/7280_031_0000001.htm)

A HEAT round on the other hand..

Kerryburgerking
2013-08-14, 10:46
Out of interest is there any reflection of that theory that I've heard kicking around about Sabot/AP rounds cleanly going into one side and out of the other side of a soft skinned or lightly armoured vehicle?

I.e. A 'vanilla' aluminium M113 takes a sabot shell from a T72, but receives no damage because it was shot in the rear compartment and the shell penetrated one side cleanly, passed through the [empty] compartment, penetrated the OTHER side, and carried straight on out into thin air beyond.

Obviously a fairly rare occurence, but if it has been represented (if it is even possible 'IRL') could that explain how certain APC's seem invulnerable?

In which case, if firing a Sabot shell is it possible to aim for the engine?

Sabots are ment to kill the crew.

K4on
2013-08-14, 10:53
Okay i don't know if you intended to make it unable to climb, but it can't. Especially on Operation Marlin. I can not climb on it at with the T-72. Then not only that if i approach at the wrong angle at a base of a hill i can get stuck on that hill. Seriously broken as hell. Pardon me being a bit upset, but as someone who has spent countless hours in armor and in tanks in general. No let me correct that, i have spent 100s of hours in this game and 100s of hours in armor. And from what i remember the T-72 used to be able to climb rather well.
I don't wanna disappoint you, but the T72 physics haven't changed since 2011 or are even older.
We will take a look at it, but my guess is, that the getting stuck thing is due to the mesh, which isn't fixable that easy.


Also AP rounds and HE rounds do not do enough damage. I took 2 AP rounds from an enemy tank and was not even smoking white. That is nonsense. The guy may have been using HE rounds but even then at 2 rounds in a should have been at least white smoke. HE round are not supposed to be shot at enemy tanks in the first place.
Further more smoke and similar effects will show up earlier in the next version. ATM smoke shows up very late. We try to make it more indicating the damage which was actually taken.

But wouldn't hitting someone in the turret do more damage than just hitting the front armor? I asked our MilitaryAdvisors, and the turret armor is the most armord part of the tank. So no, turrets are fine, in PR they are comparable to the front armor level.

Mikemonster
2013-08-14, 10:56
I hope this further helps put a few misconceptions to bed:

C Company, 3-15 Infantry, Bradley (Bumper # C-11): In the early morning of February 27, Bradley C-11 was on the right flank of a four-company task force formation closing in on Jalibah Southeast Airfield in southern Iraq. After C-11 changed direction to evade incoming enemy artillery, a DU round fired from an Abrams hit the Bradley from behind.[387] The round entered the Bradley through the ramp, passed through the troop compartment, and exited the left side of the vehicle.[388] In addition to the wounds DU fragments caused, an antitank weapon (AT4) stowed inside the Bradley detonated, killing a private first class and wounding five of the remaining seven personnel, most seriously.[389,390] The two uninjured soldiers (both sergeants) provided emergency first aid, then drove the damaged Bradley, filled with wounded soldiers, about three miles to a medical aid station. They removed salvageable equipment from the damaged Bradley, then drove the still-serviceable vehicle back to their company's forward operating location, en route picking up two other soldiers from another disabled combat vehicle.[391] The two sergeants continued to man C-11 for another three days before it was taken away from them and sent back to King Khalid Military City with other DU-contaminated vehicles.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm

Hurricane
2013-08-14, 13:47
Regarding the T72 on Marlin: I think the terrain outside the city has been altered and is more "rough" now, which makes it more difficult to drive there, even with tracked vehicles.

K4on
2013-08-15, 18:15
As some people mentioned their issues with the Tank Armor System, I thought Ill give you an example how it works in 1.0.36.0:

7eehRJqpymc


Basically you could say that from strong to weak the armour has following order:
FRONT/TURRET > SIDE/TRACKS > REAR/TOP

M1A2 Example
http://i.imgur.com/gJHsLn8.jpg


Be advised that the invidual tank models have slightly differences in their setup, so the models do not look like always the same. One-Shoting a modern MBT is not possible in PR, but a well placed AP round at the rear or two front shots can cause the enemy tank to be disabled in some form for example.

Hurricane
2013-08-15, 18:21
K4on;1936668']As some people mentioned their issues with the Tank Armor System, I thought Ill give you an example how it works in 1.0.36.0:

7eehRJqpymc


Basically you could say that from strong to weak the armour has following order:
FRONT/TURRET > SIDE/TRACKS > REAR/TOP

M1A2 Example
http://i.imgur.com/gJHsLn8.jpg


Be advised that the invidual tank models have slightly differences in their setup, so the models do not look like always the same. One-Shoting a modern MBT is not possible in PR, but a well placed AP round at the rear or two front shots can cause the enemy tank to be disabled in some form for example.

This is looking really good, but I think a 120mm AP Sabot hit to the rear should damage a tank enough to make it burn down. Other than that, this seems spot-on and very similar to what it used to be.

SANGUE-RUIM
2013-08-15, 18:26
awesome work k4on, and very well explained...

Prevtzer
2013-08-15, 18:29
Will have to try it out myself, but it seems much better now. Thank you!

Some additional questions though:
-Has coax been altered in the way I've given feedback?
-Has tank shell accuracy been brought back to the way it was (being able to direct hit INF)?
-Were any changes made to tank and/ or APC HE shells?

Edit: damn, .36 isn't even out...

KillJoy[Fr]
2013-08-15, 18:31
Nice choice about decreasing the sound of the Tanks now tactic like submarine are just impossible you have to request each time the location of the enemy tank and find it by yourself, that make the tanks more vunerable.

Kerryburgerking
2013-08-16, 10:01
K4on;1936668']As some people mentioned their issues with the Tank Armor System, I thought Ill give you an example how it works in 1.0.36.0:

7eehRJqpymc


Basically you could say that from strong to weak the armour has following order:
FRONT/TURRET > SIDE/TRACKS > REAR/TOP

M1A2 Example
http://i.imgur.com/gJHsLn8.jpg


Be advised that the invidual tank models have slightly differences in their setup, so the models do not look like always the same. One-Shoting a modern MBT is not possible in PR, but a well placed AP round at the rear or two front shots can cause the enemy tank to be disabled in some form for example.

2A72 is a 30mm cannon though

nAyo
2013-08-16, 23:43
Have HE shells been improved? Because as of now they are just completely ineffective against infantry, they don't have any splash anymore ; the way they were on 0.98 was perfect.

Kerryburgerking
2013-08-17, 00:41
Have HE shells been improved? Because as of now they are just completely ineffective against infantry, they don't have any splash anymore ; the way they were on 0.98 was perfect.

HEAT aren't meant to kill infantry.

K4on
2013-08-17, 01:05
Have HE shells been improved? Because as of now they are just completely ineffective against infantry, they don't have any splash anymore ; the way they were on 0.98 was perfect.
Check out the video I've just recorded.
LtIe8NySS48

I think the splash damage is good enough?

For starters, MBT HE rounds haven't changed at all vs infantry - there is no difference between the current PR 1.0 and 0.98 version that related.

You might have encountered any strange hit registration, or you just used AP.

TheSilencer
2013-08-17, 02:45
I do think the sound of tracked vehicles needs to be increased though, they are still pretty quiet. I love the sound of all the wheeled vehicles! Allows for more maneuverability.

Prevtzer
2013-08-17, 09:18
K4on;1937397']Check out the video I've just recorded.

I think the splash damage is good enough?

For starters, MBT HE rounds haven't changed at all vs infantry - there is no difference between the current PR 1.0 and 0.98 version that related.

You might have encountered any strange hit registration, or you just used AP.

In the video it looks good and you've already said it hasn't changed, but I still think something went wrong as I've fired 10+ HE rounds 2-4m next to INF guys without any effect. And no, I wasn't firing AP... Might try it out again today, but I can't record as my FPS are low enough.

Try making the same video while playing on a public server, not CO-OP with bots.

HEAT aren't meant to kill infantry.

In PR it is.

Also K4on:
Has tank shell accuracy been brought back to the way it was (being able to direct hit INF)?

Kerryburgerking
2013-08-17, 10:41
In the video it looks good and you've already said it hasn't changed, but I still think something went wrong as I've fired 10+ HE rounds 2-4m next to INF guys without any effect. And no, I wasn't firing AP... Might try it out again today, but I can't record as my FPS are low enough.

Try making the same video while playing on a public server, not CO-OP with bots.



In PR it is.

Also K4on:
Has tank shell accuracy been brought back to the way it was (being able to direct hit INF)?

Just use your coax.

spawncaptain
2013-08-17, 14:51
HEAT aren't meant to kill infantry.
In PR it is.

Who told you that?

Prevtzer
2013-08-17, 15:24
Just use your coax.

Yeah, right...

Who told you that?

Anybody that ever gunned a tank in PR.

Contribute to the thread instead of making stupid suggestions please.

K4on
2013-08-17, 16:44
Also K4on:
Has tank shell accuracy been brought back to the way it was (being able to direct hit INF)?
According to our MAs, HE rounds are less accurate and also have a lower velocity than AP rounds IRL.
That's why K_Rivers made the vehicle gun deviation changes for 1.0 here as well.

Most likely I wouldn't exspect any further change regarding this. So yeah, no more pinpoint accuracy anymore.

CastleBravo
2013-08-19, 18:08
HEAT aren't meant to kill infantry.

M830A1 HEAT-MP-T is a 120mm High Explosive Anti-Tank Multi-Purpose Tracer round. It is designed to kill a wide variety of targets (hence the MP for Multi-Purpose), including infantry unfortunate enough to catch fragments from it. Granted, you would never fire the round at a person since an exposed human is easily dispatched by machine gun fire, but it is commonly employed against structures with the intention of killing enemy combatants using them for cover.

The overwhelming majority of HEAT warheads used by the world's armies are designed with a steel liner around the explosives meant to fragment and harm soft targets.

Prevtzer
2013-08-19, 18:42
K4on;1937697']According to our MAs, HE rounds are less accurate and also have a lower velocity than AP rounds IRL.
That's why K_Rivers made the vehicle gun deviation changes for 1.0 here as well.

Most likely I wouldn't exspect any further change regarding this. So yeah, no more pinpoint accuracy anymore.

Gameplay> Realism in this case. I've had these handicaps happen to me because of new deviation:
-couldn't kill INF on top of a watchtower, had nothing to fire against, couldn't direct hit him, coax was ineffective at that range, couldn't even get him while climbing up the ladder
-couldn't kill INF poking out from behind sand dunes, can't direct hit them, too far for coax
-couldn't destroy an AA emplacement as all the rounds (both HE and AP) missed/ went through, even when it was manned. Luckily, TOW's base was exposed, but I'm guessing same applies

And that happens A LOT in PR, so I'd really consider returning the deviation as it was, what's even the point of a new one? Realism? Come on... Add something to benefit the tanks as well then, not just stuff that harm them.

TheShaydeeOne
2013-08-19, 21:27
Haven't seen people having the problems you're having Prevtzer, heck, I haven't even had these problems when I've been gunning. HE has been doing what it was pre v1.0 for me and the accuracy changes don't feel too intrusive at all.

Heavy AT weapons still seem to be doing too much damage to armour even though they aren't within arming distance. I had a chinese HAT kit fire at the rear of my Leopard on Wanda Shan a few days ago and I could see the projectile fly in front of my rangefinder yet this disabled the tank outright. Also there has forever been a bug with British armour (whether it be Challenger 2, Warrior or Scimitar) not settling atop small hills, the vehicle will do the equivalent of a heavily armoured belly dance and not sit still. This happens on various different bits of terrain and only seems to happen to British armour, anything in the works for this? It's a pretty well known bug amongst the community as far as I'm aware.

Overall I'm loving it. Keep it up.