dre21

One more call for Visual damage on ATG

79 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
On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 11:30 PM, fidd said:

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.

Many of the gun shields where spaced  armored plates too.  More protection with less weight - the ATR for instance should also not be punching through these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want a visual cue of a dead aa/atg just give it a small explosion and smoke from the brewed up shells.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great if the crew crumpled into a ragdoll heap on the floor when dead but as with everything it's a matter of someone finding the time to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2018 at 8:35 PM, dropbear said:

If we want a visual cue of a dead aa/atg just give it a small explosion and smoke from the brewed up shells.

They do that, not sure of all the AA/ATG gun models do, but the mle37 and pretty sure pak36 do, cant remember on the 2pdr.
Does not come from killing the crew though, happens when you hit the gun carriage hard. No explosion, the gun just starts smoking out the bottom of it
Is kind of weird since i dont think it means much as far as not having the gun shoot back at you, it shoots fine with a flat tire.

But, perhaps the effects trigger could be moved to the gunner's death or something? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2018 at 7:35 PM, dropbear said:

If we want a visual cue of a dead aa/atg just give it a small explosion and smoke from the brewed up shells.

Been saying that for years. U got a like on that comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, merlin51 said:

They do that, not sure of all the AA/ATG gun models do, but the mle37 and pretty sure pak36 do, cant remember on the 2pdr.
Does not come from killing the crew though, happens when you hit the gun carriage hard. No explosion, the gun just starts smoking out the bottom of it
Is kind of weird since i dont think it means much as far as not having the gun shoot back at you, it shoots fine with a flat tire.

But, perhaps the effects trigger could be moved to the gunner's death or something? 

Never seen the gun smoke , seen the wobble but never smoke . Right now it's pound till despawn which is silly my opinion. There has to be something . Like dropbear said a small explosion and maybe the gun drop onto ground . 

Of course the small explosion might be not noticeable if you nail it with HE round , so incorporate heavy smoke ,gun drop and an explosionand u got a winning formula that will not frustrate players so much.. 

Crew gets killed via INF then only do heavy smoke and gun drop. 

AP or HE round , heavy smoke ,explosion and gun drop. 

That should not take to much DEV time or ?

HELL I'd be willing to wait for the StugH just so they can get that implemented into game. Way to many times have I cursed at ATG and AAA after I thought they were dead just for them to open up on me again. So much so that my Wife gets upset with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dre21 said:

HELL I'd be willing to wait for the StugH just so they can get that implemented into game. Way to many times have I cursed at ATG and AAA after I thought they were dead just for them to open up on me again. So much so that my Wife gets upset with me.

That why i always put an AP round through the gunner, he can push and roll away to his hearts content after that.

You do realize though, if you kill my commander, and i smoke, im still going to shoot you with the gunner when you think i'm dead
:)

Tanks do the same thing though.
If you dont flameSplode me, there is no visual that you killed my gunner.
Ive played the "oh i'm degunned, or gunner dead" card before and backed away a bit, then shot the guy as he turned to leave.

It never bothered me much, i always just chalked it up to "Oh you sneaky little bastage"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking the AP round , HE round and 2 belts of MG and he still deploys or keeps shooting scenario.

4 hours ago, merlin51 said:

That why i always put an AP round through the gunner, he can push and roll away to his hearts content after that.

That's the point how do u know he is dead? You don't u make an assumption and hope for the best.

Commander is dead there should be no deploy either . But I have seen it way to many times even on AAA gunners  .

Last time I was the dreaded Uber Lazer scoped heat seeking around the corner finding LMG and saw a Camle AAA opened up on him while he was pushing saw the bullets impact all over that gun , he deploys swings my way and let's shells fly , 2 more 50 round belts finally silenced him , was it the hold the trigger and keep firing bug maybe , but how the hell do both survive 50 rounds of LMG from 100 meters.

Share this post


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

That's the point how do u know he is dead?

Well kind of like a tank, unless you exploded it, you do not know.
And some tanks are hard to explode.
But if you put an AP into the area of the gunners torso, he is usually pretty much dead.

HE currently is iffy because it does not frag enough, so unless you have a direct into crewman shot
he may have no effect, post audit though he may not get all those chances anymore.

40 minutes ago, dre21 said:

Commander is dead there should be no deploy either

If he is dead, or control incapacitated, there wont be.
but if he has enough atp left to move a little, he can deploy.
He can also hit deploy right when he sees you firing on him, and even though you kill him the deployment will complete, no undeploying after though.

43 minutes ago, dre21 said:

was it the hold the trigger and keep firing bug maybe , but how the hell do both survive 50 rounds of LMG from 100 meters.

Could be death trigger
But also could be because ATG visual crew is a composite.

You go shoot up an 88, and i ask you, how many crew did you kill?
You of course say umm 2 you idiot, both of them.
But an 88 crew is 8 men really, so the visual ones you see are kind of a composite of those 8 and so are harder than an infantryman.
That might seem unfair at first, but figure if you ran up on that 88 crew in real life, you'd have 8 bullets coming at you, in game they cant even shoot 1.
And if you shot 1 crewman, the other 7 would shoot you and continue to run the gun down a man.

In game they can not take over for dead crew, or run, or grab rifles to fire back at you etc.
They can only rely on other players to do that for them, who will mostly get bored and wander off.

Not opposed to some kind of little feedback to taking out the gun, maybe it smokes or wheel falls off or something
but i'm also not upset if one fools me, tanks do it. A smart tiger or stug will sometimes feign gun or gunner loss to con a 
churchill to lumber in closer, or turn away to expose its flank.

Infantry will sometimes drop in a pile of corpses and lay there motionless etc.

I just say
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNvKc_ipIYlqY3UWkinfN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.