RO to Incorporate Armor Beasts Mut.

[mat69]

[...]
I guess that is one reason RO has so simplified tank model system after all.

No that would only be a simple exuce for "oversimplifications" - not even that - like the hull/turret stuff and the angling.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

for clarification
http://www.tarrif.net/

9.2 kg792 m/s97 / 94 mm84 / 83 mm71 / 71 mm59 / 60 mm49 / 51 mm
thats the info there for the regular AP shell, the one used ingame, as you can see, even at point blank range it should bounce.

 

[[3.SA].Vlad]

My sentiments exactly, many people here are practically orgasmic about the idea of a "realistic Tiger", that should shrug off allmost any damage, and take out Russian tanks with one shot nomatter where it hits.. but they are absolutely unwilling to give up anything to get it, they WANT a turkey shoot.

But the guys in thouse Ivan cookers are human players too, who should also be having fun, and a fair chance to win the round if they play well, and that is my point, allways has been in thease debates, and yes, i am absolutely willing to turn it around on myself too, in early war maps we'd have the exact opposite situation if we got a realistic KV-1, and again, a good solution would have to be found so the German team could beat it.

100% agree I think angling is the best way to balence things if you have a good driver then whats the problem??? I don't understand why people want everything to be 100% realistic if it was like that playing as russian tankers would be no fun atall...

 

[Solo4114]

I think "close enough realism" ought to be the goal, not absolute realism. Some things that AB does are admirable -- splitting the turret and hull, for example, and the original "choose your round" input option. Other stuff is debatable. Yes, you can have a Tiger that's impossible to penetrate, but it's still not realistic without component damage.

It's all a moot point until we get more maps at the range of Krivoi Rog, though. Personally I think a lot of the "ZOMG!! Stock RO sux!" complaints would ease up if we had more long-range engagements. At those ranges, the German tanks really are able to do what they're supposed to do.

 

[Oldih]

No that would only be a simple exuce for "oversimplifications" - not even that - like the hull/turret stuff and the angling.

Maybe, but think about it. Quite many already complain that E.G. on large servers (let's say they have more than 40 slots) infantry maps already lag. Tank maps lag even more.

Now let us overhaul the entire system and make simulation of everything from crewmen to optics and any other very detailed hitspots. Sure it sounds nice, but I really doubt would any server run it anymore past that - and that's a major bummer and handicap. What's the good for having extra

 

[TT33]

think "close enough realism" ought to be the goal, not absolute realism. Some things that AB does are admirable -- splitting the turret and hull, for example, and the original "choose your round" input option. Other stuff is debatable. Yes, you can have a Tiger that's impossible to penetrate, but it's still not realistic without component damage.

Nothing will every be 100% realistic unless you are actually fighting a war, but I think saying "close enough" is a bit lazy sure I dont think RO will every have gear shift or real working Interior dials and stuff but tanking needs a little love it seems an ignored part of RO. All we need is something that is compareable to the Real life verisions nothing too fancy right now AB meets this need.although it would be nice to see a distinction between FHA or RHA . Adding dynamic damage is important for all tanks not just for the Tiger I. I must stress this thread is not about Tigers it is about realism for all tanks. So please do not make this a "we should not do that or the Tiger will unbalance everything".

It's all a moot point until we get more maps at the range of Krivoi Rog, though. Personally I think a lot of the "ZOMG!! Stock RO sux!" complaints would ease up if we had more long-range engagements. At those ranges, the German tanks really are able to do what they're supposed to do.

I disagree The penetrations are overpowered at all ranges as it has been established in older threads-(if you do a search you 'll probably find what Im refering to) So for example if I shot lets say a T-34/76 at the side of a Tiger at 4000 meters it would undoubtedly penetrate assuming you hit the Tiger I. which it should not be able to penetrate at 100-200 meters. If I shoot a T-34/85 at a Tiger I from the front it would penetrate as well at all ranges.The reverse is also true look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNB9Dds6YPI

9.2 kg792 m/s97 / 94 mm84 / 83 mm71 / 71 mm59 / 60 mm49 / 51 mm
thats the info there for the regular AP shell, the one used ingame, as you can see, even at point blank range it should bounce.

Thats at 30 degrees and tarrif seems to be a bit off on the Russian stuff which is quite understandable takes alot of research to find good accurate numbers that match up. Also I find its RHA numbers a bit fishy. Oh and remember the Russian numbers are rounded up after 500 meters.

This here is by far the most accurate penetration table:how the 85mm faired up against the Tiger I.
http://img401.imageshack.us/my.php?image=penetrationtableju5.jpg

 

[Oldih]

I must stress this thread is not about Tigers it is about realism for all tanks. So please do not make this a "we should not do that or the Tiger will unbalance everything".

I guess the so called problem is with in-game Tigerfebel. Tiger owns this, tiger owns that, tiger does this, tiger does that, omg tiger is nerfed, omg tiger is underpowered, zomg this zomg that. Pretty much every tank discussion so far has something got to do with the Tiger. I guess because stock RO tanks are not realistic by terms of penetrations so german tank fans are pissed off because their Tiger is not the

 

[Rak]

Drop the flamethrowers guys, AB is clearly better than the stock system. It doesn't make the games boring for Russians at all, nor it's a "

 

[Quietus]

Yeah I don't think people understand that it's a realism mod for ALL tanks. It's not "Armored Tigers/Tigers Unleashed" Hey has anyone even bothered using some tactics or figuring out exactly what tanks can penetrate what at what range? Has anyone mentioned the KV-1 can't be annihilated at long range by a PzIII anymore? Has anyone mentioned the IS2 is no longer made of styrofoam? Did I mention that I always play Russian yet I crazyley like AB? Yep. You guys are fretting over things alot more than you should IMO. Just play it and adapt/ develop your tactics to overcome the obstacle. That's all there is to it. The Tiger isn't unkillable unless you think it is. If you decide it's time for that Tiger to die then you will find a way (I always do).

 

[mat69]

@Oldih, reducing the effects of angling would not add any lag!

AB adds inaccuracy of guns on longer ranges, call it cone fire. The cone fire is different for different tanks, i.e. you won't be able to turkey shoot with a T34/76, tanks like the Tiger will also miss on longer rangers.
The damage is also random to some degree, meaning with "luck" (call it a hit of important things like sights etc.) the tank is not useable anymore (means in RO everyone blows up).
If your tank is red it's going to blow up after random time in AB. So you can risk to fight on, but you could also die by your own tank.

So a lot problems have been solved allready.

Edit: Instaposted. Most times I also play Russian, because people like to stack on the German team, even without AB.

 

[TT33]

Did I mention that I always play Russian yet I crazyley like AB? Yep

Yeah I've noticed alot of regulars on the FKr#4 that only play Russian and holy crap they are good!-You would not think someone can sneak up on you with a slow and overburdened JS-2 but its been done to me and others. The JS-2 can win the map if deployed correctly.

The problem is that when ever anyone says "realistic" or "realism" there are always guys who do not want change and well they defend the old system as if their life depened on it. I have no issue with people who like Stock Ro tanking its just like liking a different kind of music to me but what I dont like is when people try to make this about 1 thing or issue in peticular: that my friends is called generalizing and I think it takes a suggestion out of context.

now about "the Tiger I E" sure realistically it would and it is fearsome on AB but as is demonstrated by AB good tactics and team work will win out (John Rambos=dead). Also remember we are entering a phase where we will be getting all kinds of new toys to play with for example AHZ is adding in the KV-1B and KV-2 there is an ISU-152 on the way -

Hey has anyone even bothered using some tactics or figuring out exactly what tanks can penetrate what at what range? Has anyone mentioned the KV-1 can't be annihilated at long range by a PzIII anymore?

Yeah m8 the KV-1s was a good tank! It like the Panzer III L was not portrayed as such. In 1942-1943 Germany's main tank was the Panzer III J/1 the long 50 :50mm Kwk 39L/60 (The Panzer IV G and F2 were still pretty rare and were being streched over 2 fronts) the Kv-1s was impentrable from the front except when the Pz III used APCR at close range-you gotta love the high velocity 50mm kwk 39 L/60-, So the Russians now because of AB have a good early -mid war Heavy tank!

The Panzer III whoes armor was fixed on AB ( Thank you so much amazure) is good against the T-34/76 as it was in RL but not a match for the heavy Kv-1s.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

why does everyone keep saying that tanking gets better with range. the only goodie that the gerry tanks have at that range is the nice gunsights. IE, on orel in the exact same position. as the russian i fired a 1400meter shot and penetrated the fronal armor of a p4 (shoulda bounced at that range) had i fired that shot at point blank it also would have penetrated. from the german tank position all the shells bounced off the russian tank as it was angled at the magical 1.

 

[mat69]

Colt .45 killer are you talking about stock RO or AB?

@TT33, first quote is by Quietus as well. Nevertheless, I feel the same.

 

[sop_Ie]

How realistic are the anti tank weapons in AB compared to stock,are they affected at all to the the stock versions?

 

[TT33]

How realistic are the anti tank weapons in AB compared to stock,are they affected at all to the the stock versions?

All 3 AT weapons are set to more realistic levels: but thats as far as it get with Inf arms.

The PTRD is fixed meaning it will not be able to penetrate every tank in the game with ease in Armored Beasts ( ty Amazure!) the Panzerfaust 60 is better too a bit dangerous to use if you fire it at something thats too close and its hard to aim at longer distances the Satchel is also fixed. It no longer blows up a tank unless it is thrown on top of it.- so long driverby clown car satchelers-

 

[sop_Ie]

Thanks TT33,what about the MGs in the tanks have they been modified in accuracy,sight and how fast over distance?,thanks

 

[Oldih]

why does everyone keep saying that tanking gets better with range. the only goodie that the gerry tanks have at that range is the nice gunsights. IE, on orel in the exact same position. as the russian i fired a 1400meter shot and penetrated the fronal armor of a p4 (shoulda bounced at that range) had i fired that shot at point blank it also would have penetrated. from the german tank position all the shells bounced off the russian tank as it was angled at the magical 1.

Since we are talking about AB mutator to have as RO standard (in case if you have not forgotten) the stock maps are pretty much like short-range turkey shoots where the best aimer (and tank with fastest reload time) wins due short engagement ranges and most of the tank maps being late war only.

If we have large map, let's say even about 5x5km (presuming if it would be possible, I doubt) we would have 1. enough room to actually have something more than just plain old turkey shoot with respawn rally and 2. we would have real handicap about the fact the further something is the smaller it looks (orly?).

So let's say we would have such large map with forests, some open ground and few hills and such, and the fact you need to really drive for a while before you might actually see your enemy or that if you manage to spot enemy early enough while they haven't spotted you you still would have time possibly to decide where to set your tank up or should you just try getting closer.

Too bad even as good as it sounds in paper such map would end up in boredom contest of 24\7. "omg where iz ze enemy?" "omg zomg ive been waiting 30mins nuthing has happened! wtf this sucks."

I already hear similiar comments about Orel already (even though it's not really large, just quite open) when people are just driving around, now let's make it real fun that you need to really drive for a while before you might even see the enemy...

... or get shot by enemy tank without even noticing it first.

 

[C-Unit]

I really wish the tanks were more realistic in general.

I wish there could at least be a commanders position(for tanks that had one) if people wanted to use it. Especially for like clan matches. If not, people could just leave it unoccupied.

And the damage system should be more realistic for combined arms maps at least.

Thats my views

 

[Quietus]

Since we are talking about AB mutator to have as RO standard (in case if you have not forgotten) the stock maps are pretty much like short-range turkey shoots where the best aimer (and tank with fastest reload time) wins due short engagement ranges and most of the tank maps being late war only.

If we have large map, let's say even about 5x5km (presuming if it would be possible, I doubt) we would have 1. enough room to actually have something more than just plain old turkey shoot with respawn rally and 2. we would have real handicap about the fact the further something is the smaller it looks (orly?).

So let's say we would have such large map with forests, some open ground and few hills and such, and the fact you need to really drive for a while before you might actually see your enemy or that if you manage to spot enemy early enough while they haven't spotted you you still would have time possibly to decide where to set your tank up or should you just try getting closer.

Too bad even as good as it sounds in paper such map would end up in boredom contest of 24\7. "omg where iz ze enemy?" "omg zomg ive been waiting 30mins nuthing has happened! wtf this sucks."

I already hear similiar comments about Orel already (even though it's not really large, just quite open) when people are just driving around, now let's make it real fun that you need to really drive for a while before you might even see the enemy...

... or get shot by enemy tank without even noticing it first.

Huh? If you don't like AB that's 100% totally fine Oldih but I think you are inflating things to catastrophic proportions as if AB is some supremely confounding thing that upsets the equilibrium of the universe and that only NEO from the matrix can figure out. You can already be ambushed without seeing the enemy in stock RO (and usually with deadlier effects since the guns are overpowered). I'm failing to see your point. I need more cowbell.

 

[TT33]

I think someone should post the Armored Beasts change log or a summary of the stuff changed alot of people do not seem to know what it does. -

Thanks TT33,what about the MGs in the tanks have they been modified in accuracy,sight and how fast over distance?,thanks

No turret shake or hull Mg shake in AB, the Mg does not have enough power to move a serveral ton turret or a very heavy secure ball mount. Accurate MG ammo ammounts for all tanks (which means alot more ammo for all tanks), not sure if they are more accuarate but without the "shakes" its easy to kill things at long range.

....the stock maps are pretty much like short-range turkey shoots where the best aimer (and tank with fastest reload time) wins due short engagement ranges and most of the tank maps being late war only.

Also due to the current tanking system- Realistically speaking some tanks were incapable in penetrating other tanks even at close range it does not matter if it was a "late war tank". Also you forget just angle and your indestructable.

Too bad even as good as it sounds in paper such map would end up in boredom contest of 24\7. "omg where iz ze enemy?" "omg zomg ive been waiting 30mins nuthing has happened! wtf this sucks."

There are always people who prefer rambo-style small fragfest maps Ive heard people complain about my favorite maps like Berezina, Kreigstadt, Orel, Lazur,ect. . but There are alot of people that love big maps and tanking on them perfect example is the popular AB FKR#4 server with Debrecen or the Stock tanking map FKR3 with Orel-

Also there are a bunch of people that crave realistic tanking- hense the mutators, mods- (RMF), and the other mods that use AB.

Huh? If you don't like AB that's 100% totally fine Oldih but I think you are inflating things to catastrophic proportions

I quite agree. lol, anyone else notice realism threads seems to get similar reaction as the "add the KT" thread-