v1.4 TOW damage to front armor

[blayas]

Originally Posted by XAHTEP39

Maybe not so radical?
For example, TOW is available, but 2 HATs for the team.

But you have to remember that we currently have Lat's spam, and 2 hats may seem like an interesting idea, but our combat environments are much more complex not only having tanks, but also apcs and ifvs, these would be completely annihilated if we met 2 Hats plus the current lat's spam. (Even more so with maps where armored support comes down to only apcs and ifvs.)

It would be interesting to have a staggered model of damage to the atgms, adding strategic variety and realism to the game, there is a lot of information spread about it that could be used.

Just as an example:
Atgms with 300 to 600mm penetration post ERA, maintain current model for the front arc, 50% damage for sides and back, 90% fire or kill for top ?, instant kills for apcs and ifvs.

Atgms with 600+ at 8 ~~ mm rha penetration post ERA, front arc 60%, sides and rear heavy damages if less than 800mm and fire or critical damage, if greater than 800mm, top kills.

Atgms with 900mm + rha penetration post ERA, heavy damage to front arc, kill to sides, rear and top. (front arc Possible disable in most of mbts, fire on some mbts?)

(As far as I know in the PR today the highest atgm penetration values are 9m119 and Lahat, reaching 900mm rha penetration, post ERA.)


Atgms 1000mm +, kills ... (For a possible future milan-ER, spike-ER or 9m123 )
(Hits on the front arc of most towers here should not mean a kill, as well reduced damage compared to the chassis for all other atgms.)

Some modern mbt can present 2000mm + rha frontal arc protection against HEAT ammunition, so not even the 1000mm + atgm could penetrate frontally .... but as in PR we are dealing with damage and not penetration, it is difficult to know what to say in these cases ...

These values that I suggest serve for the current concept of PR, if a concept of damage simulating penetration was adopted , then in these cases there should be 0% of damage or minor just to represent possible damage to externals intruments.
- In cases of penetration would be fire, disabling or instantaneous kill.
A problem would be the ERA, since I believe that the engine does not support the removal of the reactive blocks from the area after a hit.




Of course, it would look much better with an independent damage model and individual survival capacities for each MBT, these values ​​would not be absolute for all, simple concepts can be applied, as we know many mbt's today have extremely hardened towers frontal arches to Give effectiveness to the hulldown tactics, but more complex damage meshes and damage rate that each mbt receives for each varying atgm, only if the devs Can still wring blood from a stone of that engine. you can devs? heh ,
Addition of variety and realistic asymmetrical balance will always be welcome!


Thank you very much devs for the great work on this update, keep up the good work.



Edit: But after all this we can still go back and close a cycle of thinking, if the mbts' average resistance against heat penetrators, the average penetration value of the modern atgms, so we can presume non-penetration into the front arc , But because the engine can not simulate the loss of the external instruments, which would surely happen after multiple hits of atgm, without them for game mechanics means is simulated as dead tank, well thought out for the current concept of atgm damages.

[Fuller]

Btw. Russian ATGMs vs. Abrams (export version)

Rear hit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grw2xeXXII0

Side hit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBwKYvINTds

Front hit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8qrBkzQt64 (sound like a kornet)

Note: Basic M1A2 export models (no DU armor, TUSK,...) vs. unknown types of ATGMS (maybe AT-4 Spigot/9k111 Fagot which is often mistaken for AT-14 Spriggan/9k135 Kornet)

Besides these real life examples i think tanks are too strong compared to ATGM emplacments especially on maps with high view distance and little foliage. (e.g. Kashan, Khami).
Is it possible to change the possibilty of being tracked after a ATGM hit? That would atleast allow a TOW to disable the enemy tank for quite some time.

Rear hit: 90% damage --> burning (10 seconds until the tank will explode )
Side hit: 90% damage --> burning (10 seconds until the tank will explode )
Front hit: 33% damage --> chance of being tracked 75%

[gwa1hir]

Originally Posted by Fuller

Is it possible to change the possibilty of being tracked after a ATGM hit? That would atleast allow a TOW to disable the enemy tank for quite some time.

if that would be possible within the engine to set separate chances of being tracked according to which weapon is used it would be actually a good idea. i thought about that myself. for example a very high chance of the tanks turret becoming tracked woudl be nice

[PatrickLA_CA]

In the frontal hit video Fuller posted above you can clearly notice the Abrams didn't mind that hit. The side shots are exactly as intended, unless there's ERA which is how it is in PR right now.

[PeppeJ]

Originally Posted by gwa1hir

this would make no sense when it requires a crate. who brings that crate to you??.

A small crate would be better actually, then it would work with:
Logi/Any Heli/Trans Truck(they now have a purpose aside from being abandoned for 30 mins!)

Originally Posted by gwa1hir

who brings that crate to you?? a chopper so everyone can see it including the nearby tank? or a logi form a main base that would take ages and by the time it arrives a tank can be gone.
a solution like that would only work if you can deploy it really quick in reaction to a tank appearing.

That's just bad play. You assume you'll still play exactly as you do today, you have to use it more like an ambush tool. You don't build it WHEN the tank shows up, instead you have it ready and manned in a random location to catch the Tank/APC off-guard. Just like how you don't request a crate in order to get a LAT when you start getting mowed down by an APC.

Also making the crate pop when you shovel it up (not place) would solve the "deploy/destroy" to rearm loop (if this is possible)

[fecht_niko]

Imo the best solution would be to change the current system with using different rockets:

-TOW rockets destroy a tank from side or back and make it tracked with a frontal hit
-ATGM & HAT stay as they are

With this change tanks would not rush TOW positions and tank battles would be balanced too!

[viirusiiseli]

Originally Posted by fecht_niko

Imo the best solution would be to change the current system with using different rockets:

-TOW rockets destroy a tank from side or back and make it tracked with a frontal hit
-ATGM & HAT stay as they are

With this change tanks would not rush TOW positions and tank battles would be balanced too!

except its unrealistic as shit since for example bradleys carry BGMs all the same, why would they have less damage for same missile

[fecht_niko]

Gameplay reason like reviving and other stuff.
Ground assets should fear tows, cas should fear aa and inf should fear assets.

[gwa1hir]

Originally Posted by viirusiiseli

except its unrealistic as shit since for example bradleys carry BGMs all the same, why would they have less damage for same missile

good PR is all about realism. thank the lord the immersion is held up high and there is basically nothing unrealistic in this game.

niko completely nails it with his short post. its basically rock paper scissor. and the devs basically broke the scissor in half.
stationary tows are a complete joke now. just look at the video with the challenger. yeah have fun mec guys towing tanks on burning or the chinese on shija. but yeah im sure there are countless situations every day where you can simple shovel a tow behind a tank and kill him lulz....ofc this tank wont move until the tow in its back is shoveled and warmed up. did i mention of course that the tank will also wait until you get crates behind him so you are able to shovel the tow in the first place....lulz

[PatrickLA_CA]

Originally Posted by fecht_niko

Gameplay reason like reviving and other stuff.
Ground assets should fear tows, cas should fear aa and inf should fear assets.

Except that inf doesn't fear assets because a 2cm wall can keep them safe from everything and they can just wait for the tank to slam a shell in their "hard cover" then pop up and remove him with HAT.