devonus durga
Death Dea1ers
310
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 00:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
1lb of c4, regardless of what material it hits, has the same explosive impact against all targets. Its how that target responds that changes. Unfortunately, even a scifi setting such as dust, physics still apply. The same explosion will cause the same amount of damage to a target regardless of its materials, and its a general physical limitation, that, since they fly, helicopters planes etc have less armor then a tank.
This also applies to derpships, seeing as though we might have hover capabilities in dust, the behicle in question would still require a generator of sufficient size to enable lift. This coupled with armor would greatly inhibit a vehicles mobility. So much like modern day, a balance must be achieved between the two. It would of course be possible to create a vehicle with as much armor as a tank, capable of flight, but this vehicle would be far far less maneuvaurable then a tank, as tanks only have to generate enough energy to propel them forward and backwards, while am airborne vehicle of similar weight and armor, would have to sacrifice the majority of its maneuvaurability to maintain VERTICLE lift, its horizontal movemt would be very slow\and or rather clunky and hard to handle. So, asking for one weapon to do less damage, is not only physics wise iimpossible, but also incapable of being argued that an airborne vehicle with the maneuvarability characteristics of a dropship, is better able to resist damage then a tank.
Second, In modern military vehicles explosive resistance comes from reactive armor whihc is desighned to take a hit, and project the blast away from the vehicle as best it can. This usually takes the form of plates that fall off on impact, much like modern cars crumple zones that are used to guide the explosive impact into.a non deadly form. The majority of. These systems are one time use plating. In dust shields and hardners perform along a similar principle, deflecting the blast away as best it can within limits, and are then used up till restocked\recharged.
Your a dropship, your ability to shrug off damage is much like a scouts; its not the ability to soak damage, but the ability to avoid damage, that gives you an edge. You already have an elevated position, stronger weapons and armor then any infantry, and are more maneuvaurable in all axises then anything else on the battlefield.
If we really want a realistic damage profile, let's take the AT4 anti tank weapon used by the us military. It can one shot even our own Abrams. Then there is the javelin missle launcher, capable of targeting both ground and airborne targets, has homing capabilities, and also one shots anything on the modern battlefield. Even classic rpgs can one shot most tanks, and disable all know vehicles. The only difference is that most of the vehicle their used against are desighned to insure their passengers and pilots survival, the vehicle is almost always knocked out of commision by a single strike. Its to bad your derpships arnt desighned that way. Oh wait, nm; you guys always survive your dropship being destroyed unless we hunt you down on the ground.
Proto Stompers Information
Tap (x°x) tap
|
devonus durga
Death Dea1ers
311
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 01:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:devonus durga wrote:1lb of c4, regardless of what material it hits, has the same explosive impact against all targets. Its how that target responds that changes. Unfortunately, even a scifi setting such as dust, physics still apply. The same explosion will cause the same amount of damage to a target regardless of its materials, and its a general physical limitation, that, since they fly, helicopters planes etc have less armor then a tank.
This also applies to derpships, seeing as though we might have hover capabilities in dust, the behicle in question would still require a generator of sufficient size to enable lift. This coupled with armor would greatly inhibit a vehicles mobility. So much like modern day, a balance must be achieved between the two. It would of course be possible to create a vehicle with as much armor as a tank, capable of flight, but this vehicle would be far far less maneuvaurable then a tank, as tanks only have to generate enough energy to propel them forward and backwards, while am airborne vehicle of similar weight and armor, would have to sacrifice the majority of its maneuvaurability to maintain VERTICLE lift, its horizontal movemt would be very slow\and or rather clunky and hard to handle. So, asking for one weapon to do less damage, is not only physics wise iimpossible, but also incapable of being argued that an airborne vehicle with the maneuvarability characteristics of a dropship, is better able to resist damage then a tank.
Second, In modern military vehicles explosive resistance comes from reactive armor whihc is desighned to take a hit, and project the blast away from the vehicle as best it can. This usually takes the form of plates that fall off on impact, much like modern cars crumple zones that are used to guide the explosive impact into.a non deadly form. The majority of. These systems are one time use plating. In dust shields and hardners perform along a similar principle, deflecting the blast away as best it can within limits, and are then used up till restocked\recharged.
Your a dropship, your ability to shrug off damage is much like a scouts; its not the ability to soak damage, but the ability to avoid damage, that gives you an edge. You already have an elevated position, stronger weapons and armor then any infantry, and are more maneuvaurable in all axises then anything else on the battlefield.
If we really want a realistic damage profile, let's take the AT4 anti tank weapon used by the us military. It can one shot even our own Abrams. Then there is the javelin missle launcher, capable of targeting both ground and airborne targets, has homing capabilities, and also one shots anything on the modern battlefield. Even classic rpgs can one shot most tanks, and disable all know vehicles. The only difference is that most of the vehicle their used against are desighned to insure their passengers and pilots survival, the vehicle is almost always knocked out of commision by a single strike. Its to bad your derpships arnt desighned that way. Oh wait, nm; you guys always survive your dropship being destroyed unless we hunt you down on the ground. A very detailed summary that puts the argument into a realistic perspective. Do you have any additions for in game mechanics that could better reflect this, or more so balance vehicles in terms of damage taken vs AV fire. While I appreciate a good dose of realism OHKOing my HAV doesn't sounds like enjoyable gameplay given the proliferation of AV amongst players.
Personally? No, I don't want one hit vehicles or av, even though I run av, it would take the joy out of the fight. But arguing that its illogical for a dropship with less ehp to take less damage then a tank. By that standard scouts should get damage mitigation vs light arms fire, and is very illogical
Honestly I think they have their counter balance to swarms. I forge gun a lot, and do so coupled with proto swarmers and fellow forgers. I also know ads pilots from my corp who get taken down. Most of the time, I get an ads because they got cocky, impatient, or I just got plain lucky. If they pop their shield booster and injectors I rarely get them, and though swarms do get them, its usually bc their getting hit by three to four swarmers. If a single swarmer takes out an ads. Its bc they were flying stupid, and if they get taken out by multipeles? Well you shoot enough missles at anything its going to go down.
Unfortunately everything has to have its counter, to ads, its swarms. Tanks, its forge guns, infantry, its anything. Its the coordination between them that decides the over all survivability. When we squad with out ads we instantly start seeking out threats against it. We have had target markers placed on forgersand proto swarms and scouts assasinate them, had them sniped, or just straight up had the ads"s door gunners jump out on em and merc em. Team work is op, and it goes both ways, be it running av or countering av.
Proto Stompers Information
Tap (x°x) tap
|