Lack of Armored Beasts servers

[Funker42]

I don't play AB servers because I have experienced a lot of garbage with it. Like facing a PIV head on at under 100m range in my T34/85, I shoot first directly at his front glacis or even his turret face and my shell bounces, his shot destroys me completely. This situation has happened to me over and over and over again with the AB mod.

As opposed to a Tiger not killing a T34 or T34/85 a PzIII at point blank range in Vanilla? Yes, there are bugs with AB but it at least let you have one hit kills at the correct ranges. I could kill plenty of PzIV and Stugs with a T34/85 with one hits at long ranges on Debreca no problem.

 

[Funker42]

Some have said AB improves the armour of both sides but when i have queried this no-one has yet explained how. And the old 'solution' of making the team numbers lop-sided to compensate for the loadout capabilities wont work cos ppl aren't appreciating how un-attractive a proposition it is to play as the majority side with duff kit (just look at nearly all video games, where the protagonist is the heavily out-numbered hero relying on superior equipment)

To be fair, AB improved by making the tanks appear to be more realistic more so than the "Two hits kill" formula vanilla appears to use. That said, it does have a bias to German tanks because tactically they were better armed and armored than the Soviet counterparts (85mm does not equal 88mm for example nor does the 76mm and 76mm equate to the same firepower)

However, what it does not simulate correctly is the strategic problems the Germans had with lack of tanks, lack of fuel, and breakdowns.

A historical load out for the average panzer division in 1944 would be to have 10 stugs and a single PzIV. Tigers and panthers were a rare occurance on the eastern front. In fact most Soviet tank losses were actually from Stugs than Tigers/Panthers/King Tigers.

I have yet to see a map with a Stug battalion like you would see historically. When Tigers did appear on the battlefield they tended to inflict horrible casualties on the Allies and Soviets on the tactical level and usually suffered most of their casualties from air attacks and mechanical breakdowns in which the tank had to be abandoned.

Now, some of this had to do with the tank itself but it also had to do with the quality of training the Germans had with their tanks which is also hard to simulate in RO.

Not to say that plenty of tigers were destroyed in tank on tank battles with the T34/85 and strategically the 85 is cheaper to make and more reliable and can travel faster than the Tiger. Its turret also moves faster etc etc.

AB is far from perfect but its way better than vanilla I think. Speaking of which... AB really shines on maps with PzIII 50mm and PzIV 75mm short barrles maps vs T-34/75. It really provides the real challenge the Germans had before 1943 during the time they were actually beating the Soviets with inferior tanks.

(The irony of this whole debate is that historically Germans won when they had inferior tanks and were loosing when they had better tanks)

 

[Quietus]

Some have said AB improves the armour of both sides but when i have queried this no-one has yet explained how.

Very simply, whatever the RL stats of a particular tank are that is what AB has (as far as is permited within confines of the game engine). It's very simple, if you know the RL info on various tanks then you already know what AB does. It's nothing more than that. It's a realism mod. I don't know how to say it any more clearly.

 

[Solo4114]

Here's the problem with realism and realism mods.

They're not realistic.

The thing is, the closer you actually get to realism, the more glaring the LACK of realism. So, while AB may accurately represent the rough statistics on tanks, it does not represent a lot of other crucial factors in armored combat.

Mechanical breakdowns, spalling, component damage, etc. all are means by which an individual tank is taken out of combat. Maybe not destroyed outright, but rendered combat ineffective (much like "You've been shot in the leg and suffered enough damage that you're now combat ineffective, so we kill your avatar.").

AB may show that this or that tank had X amount of frontal armor, that that tank had Y muzzle velocity for its rounds, etc., but it doesn't model that the tank has been effectively removed from combat because its gun elevator is jammed by a round that was "shot trapped", nor does it model that the tank can only fight with its commander unbuttoned because the main gun's optics have been destroyed. And track/wheel/immobilizing shots, one of the absolute critical aspects of armored combat, is still ignored as far as I know (It's been a while since I played AB, and maybe this is now modeled).

I agree that AB does have some realism improvements, but it's not the be-all end-all, nor is it absolutely superior to stock RO. I think stock RO works from a gameplay perspective, given the design of most of the maps. Not all of the maps, mind you, but most of them.


Put simply, good though AB may be, we'd need a LOT more maps like Orel, BDJ, and Krivoi Rog (with better spawn locations, that is) to really put AB to the test. And under those circumstances, I expect AB would really shine, but by the same token, stock RO wouldn't be quite as "WTF??? THAT'S A LOAD OF CRAP!! HE SHOULD BE DEAD/I SHOULD BE ALIVE!!" as it is currently.

 

[Quietus]

Here's the problem with realism and realism mods.

They're not realistic.

The thing is, the closer you actually get to realism, the more glaring the LACK of realism. So, while AB may accurately represent the rough statistics on tanks, it does not represent a lot of other crucial factors in armored combat.

Mechanical breakdowns, spalling, component damage, etc. all are means by which an individual tank is taken out of combat. Maybe not destroyed outright, but rendered combat ineffective (much like "You've been shot in the leg and suffered enough damage that you're now combat ineffective, so we kill your avatar.").

AB may show that this or that tank had X amount of frontal armor, that that tank had Y muzzle velocity for its rounds, etc., but it doesn't model that the tank has been effectively removed from combat because its gun elevator is jammed by a round that was "shot trapped", nor does it model that the tank can only fight with its commander unbuttoned because the main gun's optics have been destroyed. And track/wheel/immobilizing shots, one of the absolute critical aspects of armored combat, is still ignored as far as I know (It's been a while since I played AB, and maybe this is now modeled).

I agree that AB does have some realism improvements, but it's not the be-all end-all, nor is it absolutely superior to stock RO. I think stock RO works from a gameplay perspective, given the design of most of the maps. Not all of the maps, mind you, but most of them.


Put simply, good though AB may be, we'd need a LOT more maps like Orel, BDJ, and Krivoi Rog (with better spawn locations, that is) to really put AB to the test. And under those circumstances, I expect AB would really shine, but by the same token, stock RO wouldn't be quite as "WTF??? THAT'S A LOAD OF CRAP!! HE SHOULD BE DEAD/I SHOULD BE ALIVE!!" as it is currently.

I think in the future I need to specify precisely what I mean when I say "realism". "Realism mod" in this case doesn't mean 100% accurate reproduction of RL it just means more realistic than stock. That's all I'm talking about. As I said in the other thread I'm fully aware AB is not the be all/end all of realism. But it sure as hell at least tries despite game limitations.

About stock tank combat: "working from a gameplay perspective" not in my book. I guess you'd have to define what you consider "good gameplay". Invulnerable "god mode" angleing and uber powered guns that can toast anything at any range (as long as it isn't angled of course) & grossly underarmored tanks isn't my idea of "good gameplay". What's really the kicker though is that I was even more deadly in stock tank combat due to all of those things I mentioned, so my switch to AB is in no way linked to sucking at stock tank combat, it's linked to being tired of playing with ridiculous tactics/ strategies and the hunger for more realism.

 

[Solo4114]

Well, I'm talking "gameplay" in the sense of "easily accessible and for the most part reasonably balanced."

The angling thing is an issue, I agree. However, on the issue of tanks on both sides being able to penetrate too easily, I think that's one of those "gameplay" conceits. Partially this is due to the ranges at which we engage, where, arguably, any tank should be able to penetrate any other tank (with a few exceptional matchups that didn't originally occur in stock RO). 300-600m seems to be the standard engagement range in RO's original maps, usualy towards the lower end of that scale. So why not have the weapons able to penetrate?

The problem is that there are gaps and flaws in the original system, many of which have been highlighted by custom mappers. For example, Orel76v88 was the first map to show that a T-34-76 could penetrate a Tiger's armor at +500m. I doubt the devs even KNEW that before the map came out, simply because they probably didn't match up literally every tank and test it out.

But, for the matchups we had in the original stock RO maps, the system worked PRETTY well most of the time (angling issues notwithstanding). It allowed most players who know exactly squat about tank warfare (except that Tiger wtfpwnz0rz all) to hop in a tank and have a reasonable chance of having fun. The two sides would also be reasonably balanced against each other, and at least the system bothered to take penetration into account.

By comparison, look at literally every other FPS with vehicles out there. As annoying as angling is, at least SOME shots will simply ricochet. You don't find that in other games, really.


That's the thing about RO that I think people forget -- and some of this is due to how the game was marketed.


RO is a somewhat more realistic FPS than the usual bill of fare. It's not a tactical sim, it's not an armor sim. It's not 100% realism, but it's a good bit more realistic than other games out there. I don't know too many FPS games that completely do away with the crosshair and have bullet trajectories determined by barrel location (including movement and recoil effects, deviation, etc.). I don't know many FPS games that include vehicles which model tank penetration and critical hit locations.

I think that's all RO was ever really supposed to be -- MORE realistic than the competition, but not a real-world sim.


The nice thing about AB is that it gives people the option to add yet more realism. My point, however, is that the more you add, the more that whatever ISN'T there becomes glaringly apparent. The other big problem is the effect on gameplay that this can have.

Realistically speaking, Krivoi Rog should be a slaughter for the Russians until they can close range. The fact of the matter is that with stock RO, the Russian guns can penetrate all enemy tanks except the tiger at ranges of over 1000m. Now, I don't have the figures in front of me, but my sense is that this is historically inaccurate. Moreover, the Russian guns shouldn't be as precise in actually HITTING the enemy even if they could penetrate.

Now, assuming AB actually models all this, what else is MISSING that would make the map an even chance for each side? Mostly it's things that would be up to the mapper. IE: supply shortages (so the Germans get one Tiger for the whole map, 3 Pz IVs, and the rest are Stug IIIs and Pz IIIs). But just playing the map with the AB mutator but nothing else can seriously screw up the balance on some maps.


This is AB's big downfall. It's a great little mutator for what it does, but the maps NEED to be designed around it (or at least balance out by sheer luck). I think this is one of the main reasons you DON'T see more AB servers out there -- the maps we have just aren't designed to handle AB. They're designed around stock RO balance, and within that balance, they basically work (a few "Oh jeez, that's totally unrealistic" moments per map notwithstanding). Even though things like angling are overmodelled, there's other options besides sitting still and continuing to fire at an invulnerable tank. Often if you move even a little bit, the new angle you'll have will let you penetrate. I think most folks get this, and adapt accordingly, and thus stock RO -- while far from perfect -- works as a self-contained albeit unrealistic system.

AB, on the other hand, may NOT work because, while it IS realistic, it may not be much fun to play on certain maps. This could be where the perceived german favoritism is coming from. It's not that AB itself "favors" the germans. AB just plugs in new data -- realistic data. The problem is that, with the realistic data plugged in, some maps probably swing to the Germans' favor now due to layout and equipment.



Personally, if AB is gonna take off, I think it needs mappers to back it up. You need AB specific maps, or at least AB versions of maps. So, for example, on BDJ, if the Tiger spawns every 6-7 minutes (when killed) in stock RO, the AB version should have no respawns. Other maps that showcase things like what Krivoi Rog is trying to do could also be made. The Germans would have the range advantage, but the Russians would have mobility.

I think AB can become popular given the right circumstances. Unfortunately, the stock RO maps and custom maps aren't designed for it, so it's really luck of the draw as to whether the map plays well.

 

[Lo0n]

to refute the german bias thing - last night i was sat in an is-2 on debrecen, butchering panthers, PzIV's and stugs til i ran out of ammo, at ranges of 900-1200 metres, with several shots pinging off my front glacis. now i was picking where to hit on stationary tanks (ie turret front on panthers and anywhere pretty much on the others) or just lobbing them at their flanks as they moved. all the incoming rounds either fell short or hit the front glacis and pinged off, none of them hit the turret which is where i aim for on is-2's, and none of them lived long enough to readjust aim and range... just a shame that i ran out of ammo. basically if playing as russian - aim well, especially if the enemy can get off three rounds for your one. all tanks have a soft spot - if you can't hit it relocate and flank em, like they really had to.

also, whenever i'm in a PzIV i get an idea of what the americans and brits felt like in shermans, that thing is made of paper mache.

 

[Quietus]

However, on the issue of tanks on both sides being able to penetrate too easily, I think that's one of those "gameplay" conceits. Partially this is due to the ranges at which we engage, where, arguably, any tank should be able to penetrate any other tank (with a few exceptional matchups that didn't originally occur in stock RO). 300-600m seems to be the standard engagement range in RO's original maps, usualy towards the lower end of that scale. So why not have the weapons able to penetrate?

Solo you need to do some research on the tanks and guns in question so you have a complete understanding of what is reasonable for tanks to do and what is not. There are MANY tanks that fail to penetrate others even at 300 meters (or less, or it's not even possible at all). Low engagement ranges are not an excuse to keep the current system. The only excuse is people who just want to jump in and have some quick fun without thinking too hard about realistic tactics (which is fine). But don't try and paint AB to be something only of consequence for extreme range tanking because it's much more than that.

The problem is that there are gaps and flaws in the original system, many of which have been highlighted by custom mappers. For example, Orel76v88 was the first map to show that a T-34-76 could penetrate a Tiger's armor at +500m. I doubt the devs even KNEW that before the map came out, simply because they probably didn't match up literally every tank and test it out.

I'm sure they do know that since there is no "penetration scale" in stock tank combat. How it works in stock is if you can penetrate a certain tank then you can do it at any range. It's either yes or no there's no maybe in stock tank combat. The only maybe is if you are god mode angled then all bets are off for any tank. I hope I don't need to explain the obvious ridiculous outcomes of such a system. It's fine to like stock tank combat and not like AB but at least admit the reasons for it and don't try and manufacture hollow reasons and pass the blame on AB. AB tends to be more for people who are serious tankers so if you are just someone who tanks "every now and then" for fun then yeah, chances are you will not want or like AB, why would you want to take the time and effort to learn something you only occasionally do, right? But please just admit that if that's the case.

 

[Oldih]

Somehow this conversation seems to end up in same old bull**** we have seen ages ago. First if we put the facts to extreme, it is often countered with the fact "engine limitations" or such. If someone is trying to talk in non-offensive matter about some diffrences about stock RO tank and AB, it ends up in the discussion that "Well stock RO sucks this and that AB simulates this and that" and we create a loophole the fact when you bring something extreme someone counters it with a generic fact and when someone talks about generic facts someone brings it to the extreme, and then again countered by general or generic facts and such. Loophole anyone?

I agree with Solo's that most of the maps are not simply cut out for AB. It is NOT AB's fault (and so far no-one has blamed that it's AB's fault to have crap tank maps), but it is a major influence with it. It could be compared to something like E.G. even if we have

 

[.Ender.]

I don't know its just me, but the only server i find with this great tank mod is Fkmod's debrecen only server. Can you tell me others?

Since i first tried this great mutator, i said WOW. It really made me play tank maps only with AB running on. The changes are so much i can't play without it (like different hitbox for turrets etc.). So in short are there any other european tank servers running this baby? I would like to try black day july, debrecen light gentlemen and other cool maps with this mod. And sry for my english

To answer your question, here is a link to FK's server #4 AB/Mod Information Link

 

[dogbadger]

Very simply, whatever the RL stats of a particular tank are that is what AB has (as far as is permited within confines of the game engine). It's very simple, if you know the RL info on various tanks then you already know what AB does. It's nothing more than that. It's a realism mod. I don't know how to say it any more clearly.

thing is , we're talking about the lack of AB servers, and it's lack of popularity in general.

On the map this mut was 1st encountered by many, it widened the performance gap of the 2 sides armour. This may not be the case of later maps, when the russian big guns arrive, but nevertheless 1st impressions last.
From what you are saying, sure a russian tank with an anatomical knowledge of the German tank hotspots (and the skills to act upon it) might do well, but when i've tried german armour in Orel i could hit anything, anywhere at any range to get a kill.
The Tiger and Panther seemed completely idiot proof on that map with AB.

 

[Quietus]

I still fail to see actually destroyable tracks in AB. They are still as invulnerable as they are in stock RO. If that would be "fixed" I very much believe it might end few troubles, like the fact even angling effect is reduced you still do that in AB 24h\7. No real penalty about it. But let me guess - that wouldn't be fun anymore? How ironic.

You shouldn't assume: I've stated in past threads about how I wish the tracks were destroyable as a penalty for angling. Bring on the destroyable tracks, I welcome them and always have.

We're still talking about same exact bull**** after having like four-six threads about almost the exactt same thing. We're not going anywhere here. And when someone tries to talk something constructive in some point of view it ends up being ignored by the other part or simply just counter it with the exact same techniques.

I'm not ignoring anything I'm just trying to educate people on RL facts. If people keep making arguments based on assumptions rather than facts that's why things "go in circles". Is one of your points that AB doesn't model track damage so until it does we should all wait? That seems like "all or nothing" argument to me. You guys argue that none of the stock tank maps are "cut out" for AB yet have to even actually tried AB on them? Do you fully know the capabilities of all the tanks and their guns? Don't make generalizations based on incomplete knowledge/ assumptions.

If you are talking the maps aren't "cut out" for AB based upon the tank loadout per map well then you are right (which is an easy fixable solution). If you are talking that the maps aren't cut out for AB based on the sizes of the maps, well you are wrong then. Even small tank maps can benefit from AB. Stock tank combat has far more realism deficiencies than AB has realism omissions, so I really don't understand why the fanatical defense of something so very flawed in it's own right. If you like stock tank combat that's fine but don't shift the reasoning why you like it as being because of what the alternative has "failed" to deliver either. AB is for those who want more realism (any amount they can get). If you are waiting for total realism to be achieved before you accept it then you will be waiting forever. But I guess this qualifies as BS circular argument.

 

[Quietus]

thing is , we're talking about the lack of AB servers, and it's lack of popularity in general.

On the map this mut was 1st encountered by many, it widened the performance gap of the 2 sides armour. This may not be the case of later maps, when the russian big guns arrive, but nevertheless 1st impressions last.
From what you are saying, sure a russian tank with an anatomical knowledge of the German tank hotspots (and the skills to act upon it) might do well, but when i've tried german armour in Orel i could hit anything, anywhere at any range to get a kill.
The Tiger and Panther seemed completely idiot proof on that map with AB.

Yes German tanks have superior guns for the most part. That's why care needs to be taken in map loadouts to achieve balance. The whole "balance" with most incarnations of Orel is that Russians have the speed advantage. Getting into a straight shootout as a Russian tanker is not something you want to be doing on Orel unless you happen to be playing a version with the T34-85 or IS2. Orel is all about ambush & flanking for Russians. Once again stock "tactics" don't apply to AB.

Play Debrecen where the loadouts are very evenly balanced and you will see the Germans get their asses handed to them unless they also know and apply good tactics. On that map it's no longer just enough for the German to possess superior equipment, if they don't know their tanks capability they will fail time and time again. Germans are no longer given a free ride, they need to use tactics just like the Russians always have had to.

 

[Oldih]

I'm not ignoring anything I'm just trying to educate people on RL facts. If people keep making arguments based on assumptions rather than facts that's why things "go in circles". Is one of your points that AB doesn't model track damage so until it does we should all wait? That seems like "all or nothing" argument to me.

So am I. Maybe in the extreme cases, but we have the same view about certain stuff. Problem is if we use some very concrete facts about some things which are realistic and such often ends up in "no this is just a game". It might not be even all or nothing argument, but still we go in circles.

Yes, of course AB should not adopted because it does not model track damage. It sucks and prevents realism.

You guys argue that none of the stock tank maps are "cut out" for AB yet have to even actually tried AB on them? Do you fully know the capabilities of all the tanks and their guns? Don't make generalizations based on incomplete knowledge/ assumptions.

I have tried, and I still fail to see some true capability problems E.G. how T-34 could be said be overall more superior than most of the german heavy tanks (yes, germans did classify Panther as heavy tank back then): beter overall speed, acceleration, higher operational range, were not fueldrunks, had overall decent cross country capabilities and such and such and such. Sure Tiger might have had good cross country capability, but it's bulky. In LARGE scale strategic crap it bit too slow for rapid advance. It is fueldrunk. Yes, it may have high armour and firepower, yet if tank is good in combat that does make it superior extra

 

[Quietus]

Oldih, you are making incorrect assumptions about alot of things and are misinterpreting the discussion. It sounds like you don't fully understand everything that AB does. If you aren't willing to get a detailed understanding of AB then please do not bother arguing about it with only vague knowledge of what it does. The guy(s) who made it knows alot more about tanks than you do, rest assured. Enormous amounts of research were put into AB to arrive at as close to RL abilities as you can get (within game engine limits).

Let me repeat: You are making incorrect assumptions about alot of things and are misinterpreting the discussion. It sounds like you don't fully understand everything that AB does. You need to get a full understanding of AB before you argue about it.


You are making incorrect assumptions about alot of things. It sounds like you don't fully understand everything that AB does.

 

[worluk]

The guy(s) who made it knows alot more about tanks than you do, rest assured.

This line somehow reminds me of the lizard people thread

Enormous amounts of research were put into AB to arrive at as close to RL abilities as you can get (within game engine limits).

says who? not the research done, but the engine limits reached part

 

[Quietus]

says who? not the research done, but the engine limits reached part

I know more is possible (given enough time) but I'm trying not to complicate the argument any more than it needs to be since Oldih doesn't seem too fond of "down the road" but rather what is "right now". I'm trying to advocate the "right now". One thing at a time.

 

[TT33]

know more is possible (given enough time) but I'm trying not to complicate the argument any more than it needs to be since Oldih doesn't seem too fond of "down the road" but rather what is "right now". I'm trying to advocate the "right now". One thing at a time

and more coders amazure is 1 guy most of AB is spot on accuarate when it comes to tanking -there are a few consesions made for balance on AB which I turn a blind eye to because well in order to remove them more vehicles are needed-

All those who agrue that AB is terrible because this and this is missing or not modeled or that the Russian side will be decimated have never played AB or at least played a very early verison of it or an unblanced match like um.....RO-Arad realism with AB on it. The point of the matter is AB is the best thing so far for realistic tanking in RO! look at all the new features amazure slaved away on! The Panther's Turret hit zone did not have to be modeled it was a very small target he put it in though giveing the T-34/85 a good chance to take it out from the front.

I think some of these guys defend Stock Ro tanking because they like being able to jump in a T-34 and becoming indestrubale by angleing slightly (I've seen 6 different tanks firing at 1 t-34 with no effect)- Which is pretty sad actually if the roles were reversed there would be a public out-cry.

Anyway our modified verison of AB on DH is great had we gone with the stock verison I think the Firefly would be much less satisfying-couch *ping pong match* where in RO you jump into a tank and rambo your way thru DH will require some teamwork on both sides.

 

[Solo4114]

Solo you need to do some research on the tanks and guns in question so you have a complete understanding of what is reasonable for tanks to do and what is not. There are MANY tanks that fail to penetrate others even at 300 meters (or less, or it's not even possible at all). Low engagement ranges are not an excuse to keep the current system. The only excuse is people who just want to jump in and have some quick fun without thinking too hard about realistic tactics (which is fine). But don't try and paint AB to be something only of consequence for extreme range tanking because it's much more than that.

Again, it depends on the matchups, but on most of the stock maps, my understanding is that each sides guns could penetrate the others. T-34-85 could penetrate pretty much all but the Panther (again by my recollection) at 500m or less. All the german guns could penetrate pretty much any Russian tank (except the IS-2) at 500m or less, and angling would only slightly change that outcome, and (again, my recollection) only at higher ranges. T-34-76/Su-76 (which I believe mount the same gun) could penetrate Pz IIIs, Pz IV F1s and F2s, and I THINK the Pz IV G. They would, of course, not be able to penetrate the Tiger frontally, but could do it on the sides at (again, I think) at less than 500m. For the most part, that's your matchups. I've yet to play on a map that has T-34-76s going up against Panthers, and I probably wouldn't play such a map anyway since it'd just get stupid after a while.


But, this brings me to my point. If my understanding is off, and if the Russian guns (or German guns in some cases) simply would not penetrate at all or at least have a real bear of a time doing it, then the problem is that using AB on stock maps means imbalanced maps. No one wants to play the "Guaranteed to get your *** kicked" side (well, except the masochists out there). So, even though the game would become more realistic, it wouldn't be very much fun.

And herein lies the major problem facing AB -- lack of maps that showcase what AB does well. I'm all about serious tanking, but there aren't very many maps that allow it. The few that do allow it may not always be well balanced, either. The short-range maps are either hammers vs. eggshells, or they're pea-shooters vs. concrete. The long range maps may not be particularly well balanced either, and there's really only a few long-range maps anyway (at least that come to mind readily and are run frequently).

Anyway, I'd love to see more maps show off what AB lets you do. I think this'd also shine a light on AB's failings as a mod, and the need to REALLY pay attention to map balance. I'd hope that AB could fix up its shortcomings and show off its advantages with some good maps. It seems the community just isn't designing them nor is it widely adopting AB. Maybe the DH mod will help change that, but they'll have to seriously watch the map balance issue.

I'm sure they do know that since there is no "penetration scale" in stock tank combat. How it works in stock is if you can penetrate a certain tank then you can do it at any range. It's either yes or no there's no maybe in stock tank combat. The only maybe is if you are god mode angled then all bets are off for any tank. I hope I don't need to explain the obvious ridiculous outcomes of such a system. It's fine to like stock tank combat and not like AB but at least admit the reasons for it and don't try and manufacture hollow reasons and pass the blame on AB. AB tends to be more for people who are serious tankers so if you are just someone who tanks "every now and then" for fun then yeah, chances are you will not want or like AB, why would you want to take the time and effort to learn something you only occasionally do, right? But please just admit that if that's the case.

Let's not get into discussions of who's a "serious tanker" and who isn't. I enjoy serious tanking. I also enjoy playing a well balanced game. If playing on stock maps with AB -- realistic though it may be -- makes the map unbalanced or otherwise unfun, then I have no interest in playing.

My point about stock RO isn't about my own tastes alone. It's more about the tastes of the wider audience. I think it's pretty fair to say that AB requires a LOT more of tankers -- both to enjoy and to excel -- than stock RO. I think stock RO, especially given the maps we have, does what it does reasonably well, and accomplishes what it set out to do: namely to give people a taste of tank combat, without requiring you to be Erwin Rommel to figure out how the hell to get anywhere. AB lets the Rommel wannabes have a bit more complex fun, and that's cool.

I like AB, from what I've seen, and I see its potential. But it's not ready for prime-time yet, mostly due to the fact that it lacks well balanced and fun maps, and due to not modelling a few (I beieve) critical weaknesses in most tanks (IE: tracks and gun elevation/turret traverse mechanisms). I hope AB can get there, but I don't see it being widely adopted without these things.

 

[Solo4114]

All those who agrue that AB is terrible because this and this is missing or not modeled or that the Russian side will be decimated have never played AB or at least played a very early verison of it or an unblanced match like um arad realism with AB on it. The point of the matter is AB is the best thing so far to realistic tanking in RO as it is now I could grab anytank and kill any enemy tank in game which is not right ( yes even the T-60 theres a spot on the back/side of the Tiger I ).

I think some of these guys defend Stock Ro tanking because they like being able to jump in a T-34 and becoming indestrubale by angleing slightly (I've seen 6 different tanks firing at 1 t-34 with no effect) the Panzer III- which is pretty sad actually if the roles were reversed there would be a public out-cry.

No, I defend stock RO because I view it as good enough for the masses. And it is. I think it's perfectly fine, and I don't expect it to be realistic at this point. Having played it enough and seen it NOT changed by the devs very much, I'd say they're cool with it not being realistic in a lot of ways, but still being fun and MORE realistic than most other commercially available games. They're thinking about a larger audience than just the treadheads.

I'm also pointing out the fact that while AB is cool, a lot of the stuff you said is true. People have played prior, imperfect versions. People have played it on crappy maps that don't showcase it well.

AB may be the best thing for realism, but it isn't the best thing for having a good time on RO because it's COMPLETELY at the mercy of either the server admins (in deciding which version to run), or the mappers (in simply not designing with AB in mind).

No one wants to play a match where they basically can't shoot back. Likewise, I think people will get irritated if tank engagements are over in 3 seconds and armor means nothing (due to both sides being able to score one-hit kills).


My own experiences with AB have been generally good, but I think it still needs work, mostly in terms of more critical hit areas.

But if AB is ever going to take off, it needs mappers, not just coders. AB DRASTICALLY changes tank combat in ways that really do NOT suit stock RO maps both in terms of map layout and in terms of equipment loadouts. It'll take more than German or Russian fanboys to design these maps, too (IE: AB would be HORRIBLE on Orel Redux -- the German fanboy's wet dream map).

So, hey, I wish the DH guys luck. I hope you've designed your maps well and made them both fun and balanced. Seriously, I look forward to playing a mod with more realistic tank combat than stock RO, but that also doesn't devolve into onesidedness or "it's over in 3 seconds" gameplay. AB needs more good maps if it's going to gain popularity.