Tank beats... nothing.
- Thread starter Lord Doomhammer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
tanks are easy to kill for the same reason snipers cant kill tanks (which they can with armor piercing incendeary in the right location) and its because of balance. if the tank was as powerful as a tank actually is then the game would just be a game about who gets to the tank first. if you want realism you cant leave anything out because everything has a counter: tanks have tankbuster landmines, landmines have sweepers, sweepers have snipers, snipers have drones, drones have SAMs, SAMs have artillery, artillery has fighter jets, fighter jets have aa guns... in order to make everything real you have to add way too much stuff in order to make a game balanced and even when you add everything the game is still unbalanced. if you noticed, everything i mentioned has more than just the one counter (sniper can be taken out with artillery as well) and so the scope a game would need would be larger than any game could possibly hold. fun gameplay is more of a priority than realism because people play games that are fun, not realistic, they have movies and documentaries for realism
No, I think this could work, like a proper insurgency game. One side, the coalition, is tasked with patroling a map, and are given all the latest kit, armour and air. They, by dint of better training, have higher accuracy and the ability to issue template orders. However, they are tied up with heavey ROE and there are a bunch of civvies on the map.
The other team, the insurgents, have old AKM/74s, IEDs and bolt actions. They have no armour, no air, and no ability to issue orders except over team speak. However, they look exactly like the civvies, have no ROE and have fantastic positions pre marked on the map for them.
That would be the bast way to balance a proper M1A1/centruion/LAV/Leclerc/Merkava/Bradly whilst still being fun.
The other team, the insurgents, have old AKM/74s, IEDs and bolt actions. They have no armour, no air, and no ability to issue orders except over team speak. However, they look exactly like the civvies, have no ROE and have fantastic positions pre marked on the map for them.
That would be the bast way to balance a proper M1A1/centruion/LAV/Leclerc/Merkava/Bradly whilst still being fun.
Balance? If we made these games that realistic, then we'd be waiting for airstrikes to take those beasts down. And of course, having indestructible planes that can't be shot down without SAM batteries on hand would present another bit of difficulty. These games are meant to be fun and competitive, not real world combat simulators.
Ok. Since I was a tanker in the Army. Ill try to explain it as a tanker and as a gamer. Are modern MBTs pretty much impervious to small arms fire (i.e. rifles, smgs, lmgs, etc)? Yes. Is the armor on most MBTs effective against other tanks. Yes, but to a certain extent. All tanks have a few weak points (and some games actually have them). The sides and rear. Hit any tank in the tracks and congrats, you went from a 70 ton avatar of war to a 70 ton gun emplacement. Hit a tank in the rear and you damage the engine (see gun emplacement) or batteries. Electrical systems die and you now have a very very very slow moving turret with optical sights that cant really hit things at the range the tank was designed to shoot at. Infantry is a tankers curse and favorite target. Favorite cause well a 120mm HEAT round will turn a squad into chunks of meat, curse because if they start climbing on you then well you're pretty much fucked. Now, someone noted that missiles have been built to kill tanks yes. But now alot of tanks have counters to the missiles. For example reactive armor, or any active kill system. (see russian arena) To put something this damn complicated in a game will kill the fun of the game. Now granted I always go for the tank and try to do as much damage as possible in a quick amount of time because virtual tanks, just like the real ones, are really good at attracting attention. The boom kind of attention.
Well actually RPGs are capable of penetrating ceramic if aimed at the proper weak spots. Now granted, aiming an RPG is like throwing a foot ball whilst wearing boxing gloves, but a rear/weak armor shot, tank tread hit, or ignited fuel supply will effectively render the tank immobile if not heavily damaged, which mostly eliminates it's greater threat capability, no tank having enough rounds to down the dozen of buildings around for a clear firing solution around the urban environments that it is exceedingly having to fight in.bibblles said:
As for game tanks, I've generally seen tanks as decently represented in comparison to real versions. the Scorpion in Halo can only really be effectively downed be massive rockets, highly concentrated plasma laser beams, and radioactive explosive fuel cells. The small arms fire only chips away at it, as to represent the eventual probability that one lucky shot will eventually break through a weak point and kill/disable the pilot/system.
THh only real reason why tanks don't seem so tough in game is because of the sheer number of anti-tank/building/everything weaponry that is available to the players (most modern soldiers do not come standard equipped with rocket launchers, C4, and other such explosive goodies, whilst gamers have them almost as an extension of their bodies)
While it is true that modern MBTs can survive dozens of hits from old RPG launchers, modern missile systems and rocket launchers are quite effective at dealing with them. Also, while tanks were originally designed to provide protection from small arms (specifically machine guns), modern tanks are designed mainly for fighting other tanks, and providing infantry support. And where did you hear that tanks have depleted uranium armour? Depleted uranium isn't even used by most countries in anti-tank rounds anymore. We've upgraded to tungsten.
Play Battlefield: Heroes, small arms fire doesn't damage tanks in that. But then again, that, and a multitude of other reasons made that game shit.
no one would play that game.
end thread?
but really, balance is what matters to me and most people, if there is a huge fucking tank like thing that insta rapes near everything, fuck that game, im never buying from that developer ever again.
end thread?
but really, balance is what matters to me and most people, if there is a huge fucking tank like thing that insta rapes near everything, fuck that game, im never buying from that developer ever again.
Just so you know, there are these things out there called "Tandem warheads" and they are easily capable of crippling a main battle tank in three or four shots. They use the standard High Explosive Anti-Tank rounds shape charge and combine that with the kinetic penetrator of a sabot round. In theory, they should be able to tear up even the Challenger 2 in a few hits. The penetrator goes thru the initial layers of ceramic, Kevlar, and DU and then the HEAT round kicks in, turning the crew compartment into a blast furnace.
That said, i see what the OP is saying, but balance trumps realism more often than not. The standard HEAT rounds don't do anything to main battle tanks. Only tanks should be able to fight other tanks. And on top of that, only NATO tanks should win. Unless it's a T-90, if it was built on Russian blue-prints, it's shit. Proven time and again in the Middle East. Iraq (twice), Egypt, Syria, Iran, Jordan all used Soviet designs. The Israelis and the Coalition used NATO designs. The NATO tanks won every time.
But who wants to play a game where playing as the non-NATO factions means getting lots of shitty tanks that get picked off before they are can fire? No one.
And before anyone tells me that the Russians never gave/sold their best tanks, i realize that. But the base tech was the same. The USSR followed the "When in doubt, throw more men at it" tactics they had used since WW2. Stalin once said, "There is a certain quality in quantity." The nations they sold gear to did the same.
TL,DR: No one wants to play an unbalanced game, so pretend that all the RPGs are using tandem warheads. Unless you're playing Arma 2.
That said, i see what the OP is saying, but balance trumps realism more often than not. The standard HEAT rounds don't do anything to main battle tanks. Only tanks should be able to fight other tanks. And on top of that, only NATO tanks should win. Unless it's a T-90, if it was built on Russian blue-prints, it's shit. Proven time and again in the Middle East. Iraq (twice), Egypt, Syria, Iran, Jordan all used Soviet designs. The Israelis and the Coalition used NATO designs. The NATO tanks won every time.
But who wants to play a game where playing as the non-NATO factions means getting lots of shitty tanks that get picked off before they are can fire? No one.
And before anyone tells me that the Russians never gave/sold their best tanks, i realize that. But the base tech was the same. The USSR followed the "When in doubt, throw more men at it" tactics they had used since WW2. Stalin once said, "There is a certain quality in quantity." The nations they sold gear to did the same.
TL,DR: No one wants to play an unbalanced game, so pretend that all the RPGs are using tandem warheads. Unless you're playing Arma 2.
The US M1A2 Abrams MBT uses a mix of ceramic, depleted uranium, Kevlar, high-carbon steel, and titanium in it's armor and chassis. " Beginning in 1987, M1A1 tanks received improved armor packages that incorporated depleted uranium (DU) mesh in their armor at the front of the turret and the front of the hull." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A2#ArmorOmikron009 said:
Also, Tungsten isn't as effective at killing tanks as DU rounds are. DU is what's called "Pyrophoric" meaning it ignites if heated too rapidly. That happens when the round impacts the target, turning the round, basically, into plasma. The heat ignites fuel, ammo, and everything not made of metal inside the tank. Tungsten just punches holes in the target.
Well, there was a big-ass tank in Uncharted 2 that you could only destroy after three or four RPG's, and they were just mercenaries so it probably wasn't top of the range, so might be vulnerable to rockets.
Yeah, it's not multiplayer, but it still shot you down in a matter of seconds and didn't give a rat's ass if you shot normal guns back.
Yeah, it's not multiplayer, but it still shot you down in a matter of seconds and didn't give a rat's ass if you shot normal guns back.
An Abrams can't sustain more than 3-4 RPG rounds to the top before becoming heavily damaged, possibly destroyed. Also a single round to the treads can disable a tank given a bit of luck. That's why we are designing stuff like the Trophy system. And things like AT4's can provide a serious worry given proper shot placement as well.bibblles said:
All that aside, its video games we are talking about here. If you want realism, join the Guard. Trying to impress people on forums with your "superior knowledge" won't do much more than irritate said people.
What are you talking about? The Tank kills so many players it's not even funny!
*Que Music*
Just playing, as for the thread, it's pretty much just for balance. No one wants to play a game where there's always that one asshole who jacks the tank before everyone else and ends up dominating the entire match just because he was able to connect first.
*Que Music*
Just playing, as for the thread, it's pretty much just for balance. No one wants to play a game where there's always that one asshole who jacks the tank before everyone else and ends up dominating the entire match just because he was able to connect first.
For Halo you can say, that future's anti-tank weapons are made to destroy Tanks. Even the smaller energyweapons might be stronger than the armor possible to make.
In the first Battlefield game, it was realistic,too.
The newer ones i dont now or care about, but its probably just balancing. You would hate to face an indistructible enemy, it wouldnt be fun to anyone.
In the first Battlefield game, it was realistic,too.
The newer ones i dont now or care about, but its probably just balancing. You would hate to face an indistructible enemy, it wouldnt be fun to anyone.
Do you really want game developer's to make it so that games with tanks have this situation?
Player 1: I'm in a tank. This tank is impenetrable. Leave my server!
Everyone Else: *Rage quit due to overpowered tank*
Though it would be fun if the developers made it so you had to assemble the tanks by operating machinery or you can activate tanks only after holding a control point for some time.
Also if you really think "Tank beats nothing" in games then you sir are doing it wrong.
Go play BFBC 1 or 2 and see how hard it is to kill a tank with a RPG or Grenade.
Player 1: I'm in a tank. This tank is impenetrable. Leave my server!
Everyone Else: *Rage quit due to overpowered tank*
Though it would be fun if the developers made it so you had to assemble the tanks by operating machinery or you can activate tanks only after holding a control point for some time.
Also if you really think "Tank beats nothing" in games then you sir are doing it wrong.
Go play BFBC 1 or 2 and see how hard it is to kill a tank with a RPG or Grenade.