I do think it might be worthwhile to explore a more granular damage model for infantry. I actually like the idea of being able to shoot someone in the leg to limit their mobility.

I completely agree with your specifics, though, that turning all the small arms into AV weapons is not the best approach to Infantry vs. vehicle combat. Though I think doing something like the OP suggested coud add some flavor to the mix, I am not trying to argue that any small arms fire in and of itself should disable every vehicle.

If it were up to me (and if I were to take a moment to do some armchair game design) I would make small arms fire usually able to damage tanks in a couple of very specific situations. And only occasionally able to damage tanks outside of those situations.

First I would definitely have enter vehicle, exit vehicle animations. And a tank, for example, would be vulnerable to small arms fire when any crew were entering or exiting the tank. Something like, a tank would have to lower shields, and you could fire into the hatch when it was open for crew to enter and exit. Players could damage or kill tank crew or do some damage to systems.

Second, if a tank were already damaged to such an extent that shields were down, armor was severely damaged or destroyed, and vulnerable systems were exposed, small arms fire could further damage those systems.

Anyway, I like the OP's idea, that different vehicles should have different vulnerabilities to small arms fire. I don't agree to the point of making all weapons capable of destroying all vehicles. But it would make for more layered, nuanced, and interesting gameplay. For instance, maybe a tank could have a targeting camera that you could shoot and disable as shields went through a power cycle. The only damage this would do is disable the tank driver's ability to zoom in with the main gun for something like 15 seconds.

Anyway, even if all of this makes for a better Legion, it is much more of a priority to get the actual anti vehicle weaponry right. It is better to have anti vehicle weapons that actually work that to try to figure out a way to make every other weapon in the game an anti vehicle weapon. But it might be worthwhile to do both, if possible. The best way to do this is to implement a more sophisticated damage model for vehicles.

I wouldn't mind having differing armour values depending on where I am hit.

E,g-

Frontal Armour- 10% Damage Resistance
Side Armour- 0% modifications to -10% Damage Resistance
Rear Armour- On top of the vulnerable spot a standard -25 Damage Resistance
Treads and Hull- -25% Damage Resistance

So hunting tanks requires AV to think on their toes and focus on HAV weak spots for critical damage, while HAV have to conside how the enter and exit and engagement and can tactically use their frontal armour as a shield of sorts.

1: That punishes armor based vehicles

2: It's very easy to get on top of a vehicle

3: We're most likely sealed in pods (same for DS pilots), and therefore makes even less sense, since that's additional armor

4: Why in the hell would a engineer make a hole that goes straight towards the pilot?

Still no.

Well one thing is I am not expecting a single individual taking out the vehicles easily on their lonesome emptying the entire contents of their weapons into the weak spots and if they do it for the wrong reasons they should have the serious risk of being out of ammo against threats they could have killed instead.

This is more for what should happen if a vehicle pilot decides he wants to put his vehicle into someplace extremely risky.

Either way things that change armor models on the vehicle needs clear model indicators that such are installed.

A place in which would be extremely risky is a compound. And the designs of compounds so far that CCP has given us so far on their own makes it extremely risky to go in, especially if smart AV is on the other side. going into the middle of a compound, then AV starts striking you, you'll probably die before you get out of the compound.

This would just make it worse, as now infantry wouldn't even need to call someone to tackle the HAV; they would need to only shoot at it.

Roger, you are amazing. You did not came with single idea in this topic, and all you do is keep criticize other's, like this is a hard part.

Roger, you are amazing. You did not came with single idea in this topic, and all you do is keep criticize other's, like this is a hard part.

well the weak spots are current in dust so just to experiment you could try attempt shooting at them now to see how easy it is to hit a mobile vehicles weakspot.

1. it should work on shielded vehicles the same way.

2. Have you tried to vehicle rodeo lately?

3. NOPE; we control vehicles in the very similar same manner we control our guns. Standard co-processing interface. Smallest vehicle we could control that has such things are the MCC.

4. Because engineering has not come up with a feasible solution to all the problems. Worlds most expensive jet can still be taken out with a single steel rod shoved down the intake. Oddly enough most tank engines are the same way since they use jet engines now a days. Of course we're not talking an entirely catastrophic explosion but loss of power is lethal for either type of vehicle. Regular rotary engines are also subject to self destruction if you rammed a bullet into the engine that screwed one piston.

4: Why in the hell would a engineer make a hole that goes straight towards the pilot?

1: Even then, still bad.

2: Yes, it was easy.

3: Have you seen the inside of the HAV and dropship cockpits? I sure haven't.

4: learn to read. And that would be a no. I'm fine with extra damage (as that what we pretty much have), but loss of movement is a no.

lolwut? okay

Well one thing is I am not expecting a single individual taking out the vehicles easily on their lonesome emptying the entire contents of their weapons into the weak spots and if they do it for the wrong reasons they should have the serious risk of being out of ammo against threats they could have killed instead.

This is more for what should happen if a vehicle pilot decides he wants to put his vehicle into someplace extremely risky.

Either way things that change armour models on the vehicle needs clear model indicators that such are installed.