dre21

One more call for Visual damage on ATG

63 posts in this topic

If distance is the only argument it's a poor one. Cause guess what a small explosion u would see at a distance too. 

I engage plenty of ATG at closer range or they happen to be attached to a Truck riding to battle. 

Here is a Question why have visual dmg for any unit if we can just pump round after round into them till they despawn.

It's called immersion , game atmosphere,  the reality of the fight , the visual satisfaction. 

Think of a new player coming across a ATG with any light Tank and pumping a few rounds into him thinking he is dead just to get killed by that ATG . Well there goes another new player cause he thinks this is complete sh!+. All because u think its a waste of time . 

We'll I don't think it's a waste of time it's needed ,long over due for all the points you can reread if you would like. 

I'm sorry but I can't agree with any of your arguments , not one the distance one is silly why have a Tank go up in Flames at 1700 meters ohhhh maybe to show u just got that all desired kill hit. And don't have to keep pounding him. 

Again small explosion , a deformed ATG all these things are able to be ID from a distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It far from the only argument. There are basically 3 ways an ATG can be killed. Small-arms fire - including tank MG's, HE, and AP. Of those three, only AP is likely to shew any indication at range that it's been hit, let alone done any damage. So, mindful of your need for "immersion", when you MG a half-inch thick gun-shield, you're expecting the ammo to magically cook off? Of course not. It certainly would not be "reality of the fight". Which means that in 2/3 cases you're going to see no indication at all. You won't see the "puff of blood" because 6/7ths of each crew-member is behind the shield. So unless you're suggesting the same visual indication for all 3 possible ways of KO'ing an ATG, you've immediately got a problem If you kill it with MG fire it'll look silly if you bend the barrel. If you kill it with HE it'll look silly if you take a wheel off, and if you kill it with AP it'll look silly if all the crew fall in a heap.

There is not even one  remotely sensible "visual damage model" (VDM)  that fits all 3 cases, which means they'll need at least 2 and probably 3 VDMs per gun to get looking right for each weapon class.; (a ton of work) for something that in may cases you wont see due range, or obscuring bushes etc.

It's daft. If you really had "reality of the fight" as a metric for VDM's be included, you'd have to admit that through WWII tank optics the only  reliable indication that an ATG is dead is the crunch it makes as you run it over.

 

Which brings us back to shooting at the bugger until it is  no longer is spawned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U want me to list where the DeV team wasted time? 

Been with the game since 2001 so it be a long list and I'm sure I would forget a few things. 

But just two mention a few , 

The Mechwarrior CRS had.

The Sports Car that they modeled.

The Blen Torpedo Bomber.

The Avatar for the HC officers ,remember those the poof pants ones.

The reconstruction of the buildings in big cities ( I actually liked the staircases leading up onto the rooftop )

The taking out of the old Bunkers just to get all new ones ( instead of keeping the old and adding new ones)

Well I'll leave it by that I think you get the point. 

For supporting the game since 2001 like many others here it's really a small request , for putting up with other senseless updates over the years.

Like I said new Team , after all this is the Game Idea section of the Forum or is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dre21 said:

U want me to list where the DeV team wasted time? 

Been with the game since 2001 so it be a long list and I'm sure I would forget a few things. 

But just two mention a few , 

The Mechwarrior CRS had.

The Sports Car that they modeled.

The Blen Torpedo Bomber.

The Avatar for the HC officers ,remember those the poof pants ones.

The reconstruction of the buildings in big cities ( I actually liked the staircases leading up onto the rooftop )

The taking out of the old Bunkers just to get all new ones ( instead of keeping the old and adding new ones)

Well I'll leave it by that I think you get the point. 

For supporting the game since 2001 like many others here it's really a small request , for putting up with other senseless updates over the years.

Like I said new Team , after all this is the Game Idea section of the Forum or is it not?

Whoa now.  Poofy pants a waste of time?  He didn't mean it HC.  He didn't mean it.  Just back out of the forum slowly dre.  I got your back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2017 at 0:08 PM, saronin said:

Whoa now.  Poofy pants a waste of time?  He didn't mean it HC.  He didn't mean it.  Just back out of the forum slowly dre.  I got your back.

If they would be still in game I would not list them. Them being taken out in my eyes it was a waste of Dev time.

I will stand strong and not back away :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎08‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 5:59 PM, dre21 said:

U want me to list where the DeV team wasted time? 

Been with the game since 2001 so it be a long list and I'm sure I would forget a few things. 

But just two mention a few , 

The Mechwarrior CRS had.

The Sports Car that they modeled.

The Blen Torpedo Bomber.

The Avatar for the HC officers ,remember those the poof pants ones.

The reconstruction of the buildings in big cities ( I actually liked the staircases leading up onto the rooftop )

The taking out of the old Bunkers just to get all new ones ( instead of keeping the old and adding new ones)

Well I'll leave it by that I think you get the point. 

For supporting the game since 2001 like many others here it's really a small request , for putting up with other senseless updates over the years.

Like I said new Team , after all this is the Game Idea section of the Forum or is it not?

I think it's truer to say that in the past, the primary problem has been stuff being partially implemented, and then, because it's only partially done, there are difficulties, eventual whining, leading to it being modified until the original idea is neutered. HC's and Brigades both are examples I think, in particular a lack of decent GUI for HC'ers to use whilst in game, as opposed to "at map", lack of intermediate level of HC'ship to more gradually prepare players for the role, and the HUGE missed opportunity of Brigades, that of making one Infantry Brigade different from another, and likewise for Armoured Brigades. Potentially this could have made for interesting collisions of opposing forces, and some variation from one battle to the next.

I am 100% with you as regard wasted dev-time in the past, but we seem to infer different things from it. For you, they "might as well waste some more on ATG VDM's" because in the scheme of things it's a drop in the bucket, for me, it's the reverse, I'd much rather see them have the capacity to get on with completing some of the half-baked aspects of the game, and that means opposing any "shiney" distractions such as this. Bear in mind that the original poster was essentially moaning because his Stug, with little HE stowage, was unable to deal with hordes of ATG's. (I paraphrase). Rather than seeing that as a problem of too many atg's, or CP Spawnage of Pak38's/6pdrs/Arfr 57mm's (and up); he's seeing that as requiring some perceived panacea in the form an ATG VDM. For many many reasons that won't deal with the problem he assumes it will, and worse, takes up dev-time the game can't afford for other more pressing aspects. The very LAST thing the game needs now is another area "dumbed down" with some half-baked half-arsed "fix" to placate a noisy minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fidd said:

I think it's truer to say that in the past, the primary problem has been stuff being partially implemented, and then, because it's only partially done, there are difficulties, eventual whining, leading to it being modified until the original idea is neutered. HC's and Brigades both are examples I think, in particular a lack of decent GUI for HC'ers to use whilst in game, as opposed to "at map", lack of intermediate level of HC'ship to more gradually prepare players for the role, and the HUGE missed opportunity of Brigades, that of making one Infantry Brigade different from another, and likewise for Armoured Brigades. Potentially this could have made for interesting collisions of opposing forces, and some variation from one battle to the next.

I am 100% with you as regard wasted dev-time in the past, but we seem to infer different things from it. For you, they "might as well waste some more on ATG VDM's" because in the scheme of things it's a drop in the bucket, for me, it's the reverse, I'd much rather see them have the capacity to get on with completing some of the half-baked aspects of the game, and that means opposing any "shiney" distractions such as this. Bear in mind that the original poster was essentially moaning because his Stug, with little HE stowage, was unable to deal with hordes of ATG's. (I paraphrase). Rather than seeing that as a problem of too many atg's, or CP Spawnage of Pak38's/6pdrs/Arfr 57mm's (and up); he's seeing that as requiring some perceived panacea in the form an ATG VDM. For many many reasons that won't deal with the problem he assumes it will, and worse, takes up dev-time the game can't afford for other more pressing aspects. The very LAST thing the game needs now is another area "dumbed down" with some half-baked half-arsed "fix" to placate a noisy minority.

Cough cough the original poster of this thread was me. Just saying so now I question how serious you even read anything I wrote.

And I don't have issues with dealing with any ATG but a damage model would let me handle even more then pounding them till they despawn like you suggest.

2nd I said I used the stug as an example for its low load out. 

3rd u must have never used a Stug3b and used it as a long range artillery piece have you? My guess is not.

But like I said you see it as a waste of time , I do not . And looking back at the responses on this thread sure looks like more would like to see a damage/kill model on AAA and ATG then not.

Let's leave it by that , I have asked for this since the beginning of the game with the old crew and now I will make the call with the new crew . You don't have to like it , and like I wrote which you must have not read this is the suggestion section of the Forum.

Sure there are plenty of other things that need fixing I don't disagree with that, but I have stated there was enough Dev time wasted on other things that have been reintroduced over and over again in just different forms (aka eyecandy)   and in my eyes a damage model on AAA or ATG would enhance the game even if you don't think so.

We have to agree to disagree on that subject .

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I think the thread was worthwhile, even if we ultimately differ, as it certainly made me think more about what would be involved, and perhaps gave 'us the players' more clarity in what to ask for in a VDM for ATG's (ie one for MG fire, one for broken gun via AP hit, one for an HE hit on crew/ammo.) - if we're seeking realism. My apologies for my comments about you moaning, that was uncalled for. I'd just come from a complete and protracted whinge-fest in game and was rather stroppy as  a consequence when I wrote that. Again, my apologies. I feel your pain about asking for something since the game began, I feel exactly the same way about the Bren Gun Carrier.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I would support the Bren carrier ,

The more stuff we get the better the game will be , be it dmg model and / or new toys.

I just don't want to see small arms redesigned for the 12th time ,same goes with hands of the inf soldier ,or the sounds of all the guns , we have been there,  done that . 

I do agree it is and would be a challenge how to introduce a variable dmg set for ATG and AAA but I guess that's why we pay a subscription,  helped in fundraiser,  payed extra just to get a memorial build for a fellow player that passes away ( BTW that was a 1000bucks raised by a former Squad I was in) and we Damn well know to put a memorial with a name tag into game did not cost $1000 in Dev time.

S! Fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have had shoot outs with paks and lose most of the time.

Used MG, HE, AP, etc. What the hell does it take to kill one.

Also was in a Vic. Used 3 belts of 250rnds each and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPEND. Plus shot the main gun of 50 cal one mag.

PAKS seem indestructible. Whereas the visual look of one it should be destroyed easily.

and yes, a destroyed model should be left on the battlefield like tanks are.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, imded said:

have had shoot outs with paks and lose most of the time.

Used MG, HE, AP, etc. What the hell does it take to kill one.

Also was in a Vic. Used 3 belts of 250rnds each and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPEND. Plus shot the main gun of 50 cal one mag.

PAKS seem indestructible. Whereas the visual look of one it should be destroyed easily.

and yes, a destroyed model should be left on the battlefield like tanks are.

I've used the Vickie a lot over the years, and for my tuppence-worth, there's something grieviously wrong with the main-armament, and probably the R35's MG as well. Both seem to "lob" their fire. They seem hideously low velocity. So in the case of Vickies v Paks, it may be a problem with the main armament as much as a problem with the ATG modelling. I've heard it said that the centre-mass of an ATG's crew model is his "but", meaning that if the MG is of such low velocity that it cannot penetrate the gun-shield, it may be impossible to kill a deployed Pak head on with a Vickie,  Personally I don't recall any particular problem killing Paks with Vickies, but, it's been many many years since I did so, so it may well be the case now that there's a problem with that particular match-up,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe just drop the gunners head a few inches on all ATG , I doubt that they were exposed in real life, the only guy that needs to look over is the commander and why can't we get a feature like we have  with the commander in tanks?

Hit O commander sticks his head over the shield u use binoculars,  hit O again he hides no use of the binoculars .

When you undeploy both are exposed. 

That way at least a head shot is a head shot and the crew is dead , and you do not have to shoot the guy in the arse to get instakill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most gun shields of the period had an integral movable flap for gun-laying whilst completely concealed behind the guns-shield, should the need arise, so in many ways the Rats got it right, a deployed ATG. unless flanked, should be a tricky proposition if firing rifle-calibre gun fire at it. The Pak36's shield, and indeed most shields of the day are around 8mm thick, ample to stop standard ball ammunition or low-mass shrapnel.

Perhaps that'd be the way to go, make ATG's have two modes - surpressed - ie taking fire, and unsurpressed. If the former, then the crew are compelled to use the inferior situational awareness of gun-laying via the flap, and can't undeploy until no longer taking fire for a suitable interval. This would even a rifleman to reduce the capability of the gun somewhat, but require a good solid hit with HE or flanking MG  fire to stand much chance of knocking it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.