Feedback - Bazooka and Panzerschreck

[GOPHUR]

Use this thread for general feedback and discussion on the new weapons. Topics should include effectiveness,sounds, effects and anything else relating to these weapons.

You can of course create new threads to discuss specific issues.

Please spend time becoming familiar with these weapons and their capabilities (kill some tanks) before posting.

This thread is not a QA thread but a feedback thread for educated discussion.

Edited October 8, 2011 by GOPHUR

[raven4]

i love it. I have no complaints!! Good work!

[jon8798]

Only tested this once very quickly before bed last night, but firing the RPATs from inside a building didn't seem to hurt my persona.

Also, when in a bush a bazooka fired fairly close to me. I was behind him and had no damage from the backblast.

Is this intentional? If not, I'll do some proper testing this evening to see if I just made a mistake.

Or are the backblast effects of the weapons not modelled at the moment?

[Hinfoos]

^ no backblast intended as i've understood it.

[desaix1]

both seem excellent. small thing with bazooka - seemed shell impact was almost instantaneous to click/launch at 100m+.

[fxmmauser]

The soldier must carry 2 more rockets.

This isn't satchels if you knew where to sap a tank you would have a 99.99% probability of killing it.

With RPATs your first shot is a guessing shot where it might land it will mostly be used to make the 2nd shot hit the target, we are also working with a ballistic system with all my years of playing made me go WTF lots of times, having deflection which no penetration occurs, plus the recoil that was added and for what has already been mention on the forum that flaming and blowing one up is hard the Enemy tank can pretend its alive making soldiers fired more rounds, adding that unskillful players will use this weapon as well ... 4 ROUNDS way too short.

The RPATs are easier to shoot but I still think 50m is somewhat a little low but it's fine with me and it is way easier to calculated the next shot on both weapons.

Edited October 7, 2011 by fxmmauser

[fxmmauser]

Only tested this once very quickly before bed last night, but firing the RPATs from inside a building didn't seem to hurt my persona.

Also, when in a bush a bazooka fired fairly close to me. I was behind him and had no damage from the backblast.

Is this intentional? If not, I'll do some proper testing this evening to see if I just made a mistake.

Or are the backblast effects of the weapons not modelled at the moment?

Friendly fire has no place on MMO or Player versus player games can't you imagine what a player would do to his team if he could kill any player he wanted with the backblast?

CRS mention already that RPATs could be fire from inside buildings due to the fact that WW2 Rocket Propelled Anti tanks would have less velocity and be more light allowing them to be fired from inside buildings.

[DOC]

we don't yet have a backblast model but we might have in the future, so that really isn't a bug or issue at THIS release point

as to loadouts, well that's not signed off on yet but using a comparison to the old satchel in terms of relative effectiveness is not a really high priority, we're not expecting usage to be replicated in combat with these new long range weapons (since the old HEAT satchel was a zero range weapon)

with "rearming from in field resupply" being a feature of the game, and due to be expanded upon, there is less requirement for ridiculously large loadouts to be carried by infantry with reagrd to heavy weapons

Given the long ranged effectiveness of these new weapons (compared to a zero range satchel charge) and the expertise that some will no doubt develop in using them, 4 would seem to be plenty of rounds, in fact we were thinking of reducing it to 3 at 1 point.

Definate NO to friendly fire. It seems nice for a realism point, but has way too many problems until modeled across the board and effectively considered with respect to every weapon and injury possible consequence in game available. We're a LONG way from that point right now. It's not even in sight using a hubble telescope or PaK.36 gunsight.

[jon8798]

Thanks Doc, I missed the post/announcement that said no backblast would be modelled. I kind of suspected it would be too much of a nightmare to put it in, but it's nice to know for sure.

To fxmmauser - backblast wouldn't be an issue for team killing, being such a small area and all - and I wouldn't expect it to kill anyway, just hurt people (you know, burst eardrums, shock etc). On the ammo front, I reckon 4 rockets is already pushing it a bit. People will get good at it in no time at all and we'll have 1st round hits at 100m fairly easily I'd have thought. It's going to be easy enough to creep around the battlefield with an incredibly effective anti-tank weapon, no need to give one man super unrealistic amounts of ammunition.

[narg]

we don't yet have a backblast model but we might have in the future, so that really isn't a bug or issue at THIS release point

as to loadouts, well that's not signed off on yet but using a comparison to the old satchel in terms of relative effectiveness is not a really high priority, we're not expecting usage to be replicated in combat with these new long range weapons (since the old HEAT satchel was a zero range weapon)

with "rearming from in field resupply" being a feature of the game, and due to be expanded upon, there is less requirement for ridiculously large loadouts to be carried by infantry with reagrd to heavy weapons

Given the long ranged effectiveness of these new weapons (compared to a zero range satchel charge) and the expertise that some will no doubt develop in using them, 4 would seem to be plenty of rounds, in fact we were thinking of reducing it to 3 at 1 point.

Definate NO to friendly fire. It seems nice for a realism point, but has way too many problems until modeled across the board and effectively considered with respect to every weapon and injury possible consequence in game available. We're a LONG way from that point right now. It's not even in sight using a hubble telescope or PaK.36 gunsight.

Respect for you just went way up.

That was a very clever troll.

[fxmmauser]

with "rearming from in field resupply" being a feature of the game, and due to be expanded upon, there is less requirement for ridiculously large loadouts to be carried by infantry with reagrd to heavy weapons

Given the long ranged effectiveness of these new weapons (compared to a zero range satchel charge) and the expertise that some will no doubt develop in using them, 4 would seem to be plenty of rounds, in fact we were thinking of reducing it to 3 at 1 point.

... It's not even in sight using a hubble telescope or PaK.36 gunsight.

LOL

I'm seeing supply list to be of around 20 RPATs what are you guys thinking?

3 Rounds seems way way too low but I haven't engage real tanks in real battle situations.

What was the normal number of rounds carry by a WW2 soldier?

I think the future locks will be done a higher distance but more deadly with infantry advancing first killing both atgs and anti tank soldiers.

Hope RPATs is high ranked.

Edited October 7, 2011 by fxmmauser

[jon8798]

LOL

What was the normal number of rounds carry by a WW2 soldier?

There was a thread in the barracks a month or so ago and Scotsman pulled out some good info. As I recall, the panzershrek had a wooden backpack that carried 4 rounds. The problem is, that a RPAT was operated by two man teams. One to fire it, the other to carry the ammo and load the weapon. So the one man rocket launcher is already a bit unrealistic. The bazooka ammo is also a bit lighter than panzershrek ammo.

[fxmmauser]

There was a thread in the barracks a month or so ago and Scotsman pulled out some good info. As I recall' date=' the panzershrek had a wooden backpack that carried 4 rounds. The problem is, that a RPAT was operated by two man teams. One to fire it, the other to carry the ammo and load the weapon. So the one man rocket launcher is already a bit unrealistic. The bazooka ammo is also a bit lighter than panzershrek ammo.[/quote']

I think it would be more unrealistic seeing a player carrying the ammo for you XD.

Thanks if the current setting is a realistic number than keep has it is.

[AHWULF]

If you only have 4 shots but a rifle guy can reload you, it adds to teamwork. Given all you have is a pistol having some buddies might be handy anyway.

[gothic]

I have not tested in multiplayer, but does reload give you another 4 or just 1 rocket?

//G

[timmy41]

It would be great if the RPAT (yes I know we should call them that, but for the sake of it) infantry could have their proper "backpacks" and carrying cases shown. It would also be great if they had proper loading animations and possibly a battery changing operation.

[DOC]

@fxmmauser

we're probably thinking that the test server has nothing to do with what anyone might think is adequate supply for a combat/campaign scenario

if it were appropriate for our testing we could have unlimited amounts of them, or anything at all that suited the purpose for which we have a test server

[GOPHUR]

^ no backblast intended as i've understood it.

We're still thiking about it. If we add it we'll do something like checking for a wall close behind you and giving some concussion damage/feedback to the firer.

[GOPHUR]

Tested ammo resupply on these (us at least) and it works.

[GOPHUR]

Respect for you just went way up.

That was a very clever troll.

We fixed the Pak36 gunsight.

[GOPHUR]

LOL

3 Rounds seems way way too low but I haven't engage real tanks in real battle situations.

I'm not calling you out specifically but I need to remind everyone that engaging with the is the whole point. Until you are at least competent if not master level in fighting others with these I can't consider your feedback valid.

Basically until you've killed a couple dozen tanks with these weapons please don't post.

[fxmmauser]

Tried Beta while US anti-tank against tiger in a combat situation.

Shot it frontally around 80m 1 miss and 3 deflected , in another situation the tiger was 150m+ I found it incredible difficult to hit him I was using almost all the sight 3 missed one hit turret with no effect.

Still need more testing but the ammo on the hands of a noob against the tiger prove to be quite insufficient.

[elegance]

These rpats are incredibly overpowered for this game. Fingers of Death. Point, shoot, kill. Every axis tank except for the tiger frontally. From distance to boot. This will end in (temporary) tears.

[fxmmauser]

Shreck can kill every allied tank frontally but is harder to aim at longer distance but rocket can go further.

Bazooka can kill every tank frontally expect tiger and stug G , it can kill every tank on sides thought. Easier to aim and calculate trajectory but rocket sinks faster.

In the end both of those weapons lose effectiveness at 150m considerable and in the end are more balanced that I initial thought.

There is still much room to avoid them for tankers, now we just need to test the PIAT

[dweeb]

Apart from the no-backblast, I think you can be much too close to target without having to worry about killing yourself. In beta at the moment; even literally pressed up against the wall that I am firing at, often I will survive that point blank shot. 5 feet away from the wall and survival is pretty much 100% though you might be lightly wounded. Since you can do this I think in the live game a lot of people will end up using them as sort of "instant satchels" - meaning instead of firing from a distance they will just run right up to the tank and fire point blank at the old satchel spots. Making close shots fatal would obviously avoid that.

Other than that, I like them.