Tank beats... nothing.
- Thread starter Lord Doomhammer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't know if you've actually played BF: BC2 but all tanks are impervious to small arms fire, machine gun fire and even the .50 CAL M95. The only way to damage tanks is to use explosives.bibblles said:
Well, realism based games do, like Operation Flash Point, Armed Assault, Combat Mission: Shock force etc.
Let's go with that one. It's not inherently important to be realistic to life; we play videogames to get away with that. What's infinitely more important is that a game adhere to its own sense of realism.EcoEclipse said:
Note Bad Company 2-- a game where both gameplay and story revolve around a squad. In virtually every facet of the game, you are reminded that you are not an invincible doom machine; to that end, you often have to call in help from a squadmate if a tank rolls in. And for that matter, that tank-busting SOB will have to call in for your help, if some other threat approaches.
Compare this to Halo, where your character is constantly lauded as a nigh-deific super-hero; having to call in for help at any given time will shatter that illusion of (in-game) reality.
Each game-- though wildly different --demonstrates their own form of reality; a reality that adheres strictly to how the game operates.
Besides. If you want to get right down to it: in-game depictions of war could almost be considered a form of the Red Queen's Hypothesis, whereby any advantages provided by a tank would soon be negated by the oppositions ingenuity and wartime evolution.
(I hope that makes sense. But after drinking enough tequila, the desire to post quickly jumps to breakdown levels)
Ok well it is a game first off secondly if you want realism go play Flashpoint, Arma 2 or Red Orchestra. You want unrealistic but fun experience go play Halo, CoD, BF, TF2, L4D and a plethora of other shooters.
There are a lot of factors everyone seems to be completely missing.
1) Tanks aren't "unbalanced" in real life. There are MANY things that can limit their effectiveness and counter them. For instance, levels can be designed so that there are dynamic, logical options for anti-tank tactics. This could be hindering line-of-sight through environmental design, providing objectives in locations where tanks aren't as maneuverable, man-made obstacles to slow down, trap, or prevent movement. Maybe even objectives/mechanics that revolve-around/allow the tank being used for things such as positional control instead of a mobile death fortress.
2) Realistic scenarios can exist where they haven't completely optimized the vehicle. Weaknesses in tanks don't need to reflect exactly what exists at this moment unless the game is trying to be a perfect simulator of a real-world time period.
Yeah, if you plop a tank into a circular arena it's going to be unbalanced, but that scenario shouldn't be happening in the first place.
I don't play FPS games very much, certainly not war shooters, but these are elemental game design concepts that can all absolutely be utilized to reflect true tank capabilities without creating design problems.
1) Tanks aren't "unbalanced" in real life. There are MANY things that can limit their effectiveness and counter them. For instance, levels can be designed so that there are dynamic, logical options for anti-tank tactics. This could be hindering line-of-sight through environmental design, providing objectives in locations where tanks aren't as maneuverable, man-made obstacles to slow down, trap, or prevent movement. Maybe even objectives/mechanics that revolve-around/allow the tank being used for things such as positional control instead of a mobile death fortress.
2) Realistic scenarios can exist where they haven't completely optimized the vehicle. Weaknesses in tanks don't need to reflect exactly what exists at this moment unless the game is trying to be a perfect simulator of a real-world time period.
Yeah, if you plop a tank into a circular arena it's going to be unbalanced, but that scenario shouldn't be happening in the first place.
I don't play FPS games very much, certainly not war shooters, but these are elemental game design concepts that can all absolutely be utilized to reflect true tank capabilities without creating design problems.
battle field has tanks that protect you from regular fire and grenades to lose to no damage to it, but the reason the rockets kill tanks in that(and most) game is for balance but yea a real live tank is much tougher then there video game counter pat but shotguns also get much worse range then they have in real life for balance.
Ever played Company of Heroes? The Tiger Tank takes numerous AT gun shells to destroy, especially if it's being used in tandem with supporting troops. Even the Panzer IV or the StuG are beasts to destroy.
But sure, if you play your newfangled pansy games with lazors and aliens you shouldn't expect anything more. In the grand game of marine-tank-alien (like rock paper scissors only way less realistic) the marine is always killed by the tank, the tank always killed by the alien and the alien always killed by the marine.
But sure, if you play your newfangled pansy games with lazors and aliens you shouldn't expect anything more. In the grand game of marine-tank-alien (like rock paper scissors only way less realistic) the marine is always killed by the tank, the tank always killed by the alien and the alien always killed by the marine.
Mercenaries 2 does ok-
Light tank will protect you against smalls arms fire (50cals, rifles etc)
Medium Tank can take a bit of a beating (Another tank, RPG's)
Heavy Tank will keep going against several lighter tanks!
Light tank will protect you against smalls arms fire (50cals, rifles etc)
Medium Tank can take a bit of a beating (Another tank, RPG's)
Heavy Tank will keep going against several lighter tanks!
Well, Im in the armour infantry in the army and work with APCs (IFV/AFV). I sort of agree with you in this and how the tanks nowadays have reactive armour which specifically counters arms built to penetrate the armour. However, even with such armour, parts of any armoured vehicle represent weak spots.bibblles said:
You could just disable a tank instead of destroying it. Just like posters have mentioned, a tank that throws track is almost as combat effective as a heap of metal with only weapons pointing out of it.
Games could make it so that players could disable opposition armour instead of outright destroying it. However, one must again think about balance and how much fun a game would be if everybody just rushed for the tank and hogged it.
That is far from correct.thaluikhain said:
Modern MBT's are hardly invunerable, as recent conflicts have shown.
Even in the Canadian Armed Forces inventory there are three man-portable anti-tank weapons capable of defeating modern armor with shaped charges and / or tandem HEAT warheads to defeat reactive armor, let alone the inventories of countries with much larger defence expenditures like China, Russia, and the US.
Not to mention that less sophisticated weapons from past eras can still mission kill modern tanks with hits to tracks and due to an increased reliance on digital imagery for targeting. Hell, Abrams tanks in Iraq have been mission killed by heavy machine gun fire in the right location. In the first two years in Iraq 80 Abrams were damaged so badly they needed to be shipped back to the US for repairs fighting against loosely organized guerrilla fighters - not even a capable modern military combatant.
Aside from that - games need balance. I would have thought that point was self-evident.
Yeah, you say this but if we're going to get this close in to detail then it would get boring. Imagine playing Favela where the militia are killed after two shots to the chest whilst TF141 can take assault rifle rounds.