|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
816
   |
Posted - 2013.05.04 17:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
Thank you for pointing out the facts.
Sadly, it won't end the QQ.  |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
816
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 18:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:You are an idiot
We are thousands of years ahead in the future with materials and devices which have only ever been dreamed about
Who are you to say that we havnt got a tank which is a mobile death star with tracks which can wipe out the entire team
Because Anti-Tank weapons always keep pace and are never more than one generation behind.
So, before you call the OP an idiot for pointing out the truth...
HTFU.  |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
816
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 18:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
In fact why cant my tank fly instead and shoot lasers at anything that moves or throw monkeys at ppl instead
Its called imagination and doesnt have to stick to the rules of the real world since its a game
******* idiot
The OP made a point that you cannot deny. You can ignore it, but the game will not support your ignorance:
Grezkev wrote:The lesson here is simple: Tanks are not blitzkrieg devices or tools. They are infantry-support, and anti-vehicle. Using them without consideration for these roles...and just trying to one-man it around the battlefield....SHOULD BE...and will be....the easiest way to waste away a Tank.
We're not playing a game about monkey-throwing flying death stars.
CCP is not making that game.
If you want to play it, you can go make it.
Then all the pansy-poopers can pubstomp anyone dumb enough to sign up while the rest of us play a balanced game.
|
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
819
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 18:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Acurate portrayal
Okay then if 1 AV person can solo a tank then why dont we just have 1 HS = death and several bullets in the chest = death
Make it super realistic like life with no respawn
But if we did that it would more or less be COD in space and shields/armor and everything in the game would be absolete and pointless
Then again would that be fun making it into a twitch shooter? well it doesnt matter because war isnt fun but it should be accurate like life and reflect war
Wrong game ther G this is DUST and not cod
Bakahiro makes a nice point here, until you view it in context.
In RL, a single shot from a "Standard" one-man anti-tank weapon turns a "Militia" tank into smoking ruin pretty reliably.
In Dust, a single shot from a "Standard" one-man anti-tank weapon seriously damages a "Militia" tank, which can then run away, repair itself in seconds, get remote repaired, etc. and come back to fight.
CCP has already made the correct assumptions in how to make tanking more fun than RL.
The problem is that bad tankers are operating under bad assumptions.
Assumptions that Grezkev was helpfully trying to correct by pointing out that tankers that want to survive:
Act as infantry support
Act as anti-vehicle
Rely infantry support
Field a full crew
Do not blitzkrieg
Do not operate ahead of their infantry screen |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
819
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 18:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Grezkev wrote:
Two troops in WW2 with a small rocket could take out a Panzer IV with 1-2 hits. No different from an "AV nade"
A Challenger tank in Iraq took over 14 RPGs and was fine except for the tracks
Advanced tank versus Militia (or Pre-Militia) AV.
Yeah, that sounds right.
Remember, RPGs were developed shortly after WWII and have only marginally improved since then. They're still great for less-armored vehicles, but modern tanks can usually shrug them off.
The Challenger tank series, on the other hand, was developed for a world in which RPGs were commonplace and cheap. They designed the armor and defensive systems on these modern tanks with RPG-type warheads in mind. |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
820
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 18:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
slypie11 wrote:
I don't know about the panzer, but I've heard a lot about german tanks where american tank shells and bazookas would just bounce off.
You are correct. Our early WWII tanks were designed with WWI in mind. As such, they were underpowered for the much more heavily armored tanks that the Germans were fielding.
Militia AV versus Prototype HAVs, in other words.  |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
827
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 19:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
J'Jor Da'Wg wrote:
IMO tank balance is this: if x amount of person(s) can operate a tank effectively ungainst unprepared infantry, then it should take x amount of persons who are equipped to counter the tank (AV)
And conversely, it should take x amount of infantry to counter x amount of AV players. Keep the ratios equal when dealing with the hard counters and you get balance. Those who are ill prepared or unequipped to handle their attacker die.
Then the game becomes knowing when and how to use your chosen specialization.
In a lobby shooter with limited player counts, you cant make tanks take 4 people to every one tank kill, because that leaves 3 free people on the other team to do as they wish unnopposed...
Which is a fairly good way of looking at it.
One player can operate a tank effectively against enemy infantry unless there are AV units or other tanks.
So...
One player can counter the tank.
Well put. |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
827
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 20:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Grezkev wrote:slap26 wrote:[quote=Grezkev]
Not surprisingly, the Allies won the war and lost less tanks than anyone...including the Soviet Union who tried to use tanks in a similar way to the Germans.
Where is your source material? Quote:
Soviet Union: Between 96,500 to 100,000 tanks
UK : Around 20,000 tanks
USA: Around 20,000 tanks
Germany: Around 45,000 to 50,000 tanks
Umm... Technically, the Soviet Union was part of the Allies.
Not a warm-and-cuddly buddy-buddy part, but officially allied to the US and UK.
So, while what I think you meant was correct (US & UK lost less tanks), the exact statement was incorrect.
It is also worth noting that without the Soviets zerging the Germans with Militia gear, the US and UK would likely have lost to the German's Proto gear. At the very least, the war would've lasted a lot longer. |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
833
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 20:13:00 -
[9] - Quote
Grezkev wrote:
But yea, the Soviets lost the most, particularly because they were poorly built AND poorly manned.
True dat.
Though they did zerg their way to Berlin and beyond. There's something to be said for not carrying about your "comrades".
|
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
849
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 21:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
VicBoss wrote:Grezkev wrote:
Tanks are not blitzkrieg devices or tools.
Your military history is wrong.
Taken out of context, you are correct. However, that statement (however carelessly worded) was the summation of a larger article that contained a large number of valid, factual points.
Grezkev's statement was trying to encapsulate:
Tanks used to spearhead attacks suffer high casualties.
Tanks supported by infantry suffer lower casualties.
Tanks without any support (air, infantry, or other vehicles) suffer ridiculously high casualties.
The point being that HAVs in Dust are balanced for that style of play, not one-man pwnage missions where the goal is to pad your KDR. HAVs are supposed to be part of a team of gunners, logis, and assaults. They are supposed to make the most economic sense in PC matches (corp reimbursements) and the least economic sense in pubs.
|
|
|
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
849
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 21:31:00 -
[11] - Quote
VicBoss wrote:Sentient Archon wrote:You know some historians actually believe that if Rommell were allowed to do what he wanted to Germany could have won the war. The 7th Panzer  Especially in Russia. If he was directing Operation Barbarossa the war could have been much longer, and may have ended much more favorably for the Germans.
Perhaps. He might have been able to hit Moscow before winter. If not, though...
Russia was (and is) infamous for being a quagmire. Rommel (or any tank force) was extremely dependent on solid supply lines for fuel and ammo.
The Russians did a very good job of interrupting those and destroying supply depots rather than allowing the Germans to seize them. Not that they started the war with a lot of supplies.  |
|
|
| |
|