Bis: age-old tank glitches everyone hates

[nyles 11]

As I more and more doubt that Bis will manage to pack changes like these mentioned in here in an update which will be released before Resistance, I instead hope that they indeed realized by now, what the communities demands are, and therefore are already implementing a lot of this stuff into the very structure of Resistance. Many of the here mentioned ideas would require a recompile of already released models and rework of existing game code. It lies on the hand, that you could include a lot of this with Resistance, which would significantly increase the quality of the data disc and furthermore would save some megabytes from following updates, in which the recompiled models would have to be included then.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpaceAlex @ April 20 2002,18:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">M1 Abrams has less that 100mm of flat steel armor in the rear, there's no depleted uranium armor/chombah all over the place you know.<span id='postcolor'>

But abrams still can't be destroyed by 2 LAWs. Just damaged, but not destroyed.

Don't forget that u can reload LAW launcher in OFp. You can't do that in real life. I think they made MBT's armor more powerfull because of that. It's easy to destroy or at least disable its main gun with sabot. <span id='postcolor'>

Why not? Do you really think the M1 is indestructible - all the technical details point out that there are weak spots in M1A1 too. And rear armor is where i would hit first. Admit it that taking 6 shots in the rear is equally damaging as in the thick front armor is very, very unrealistic indeed.

Of course LAW's are unreloadable in real life. But You can carry many of them in real life, they are light. At least 2 per soldier + normal combat gear.  So I consider "reloading" simulate taking new LAW from the back and preparing it for firing. Normally, you don't get rear shot in OFP on MBT so trying to hit more vulnerable spot brings much into the game.

I've practiced with excercise shots on LAW in real life and seen one fired on 3 inch armor plate at close range, I'm confident that some shots will hurt even modern MBT's from the rear.

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ April 21 2002,00:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm confident that some shots will hurt even modern MBT's from the rear.<span id='postcolor'>

Damage yes, destroy no.

[Beagle 684]

I said ist since June 2001 that tanks in OFP are far behind they RL counterparts.

While in can live without thermal sight, the improper barrel elevation, slow uphill speed and strage amour values are a real show stopper.

Ist wout even be easier for AT teams to destroy Tanks, if they armour would be modelled more realistic, so it does'nt throw off game balance.

And fix this stupid " gun always takes damage when tank is hit " feature.

What about Smoke grenades....

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Beagle @ April 21 2002,03:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What about Smoke grenades....<span id='postcolor'>

Lags. Do u understand. LAGS.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpaceAlex @ April 21 2002,02:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ April 21 2002,004)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm confident that some shots will hurt even modern MBT's from the rear.<span id='postcolor'>

Damage yes, destroy no. <span id='postcolor'>

M1 ammo is stored in the rear as well as engine (with fuel of course). What else do you need to ignite it all? A well placed firecracker in the form of a rocket launcher. Remember, as I said before, i modified the M1 so that only rear area explodes but the crew manages to jump out. Fair enough?

[nyles 11]

I doubt that neither US nor Australien armies will accept tank statistics and behaviour like we have in standard Flashpoint. Most likely Bis is already tweaking or even finished to tweak a lot of the units we have in game, to be as realistic as possible for their VBS1 project.

With a lot of luck Bis might let some of the gained data flow into either Resistance or some upcomming patches.

But for now, please stop talking about if 435830458 or 435830459 LAWs will damage/destroy/whatever a tank from the rear and the like. Concentrate on more vital things which could be improved and let this conversation about armour stand on its own just by generally saying that armour should be made more realistic by Bis. Leave the decision on how to the producers.

This topic is about to drown in this (IMHO) useless subject about armour statistics and perhaps has already lost its initial meaning by listing some glitches with tank statistics and/or behaviour.

So post some more things you think should be changed to increase our list. kthx.

[Guest]

Most of the suggestions that are in this thread are correct and fine from a technical point of view. What I think people don't realise that the units in OFP are optimised in the first hand for *gameplay*. Implementing accurate armour and weapons for the tank would destroy the balance that is in the game. IRL it is almost impossible for infantry to destroy MBTs and implementing that in the game would suck game-wise. I think that they have implemented a pretty good blend of realism and gameplay.

[SpaceAlex 0]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 21 2002,160)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most of the suggestions that are in this thread are correct and fine from a technical point of view. What I think people don't realise that the units in OFP are optimised in the first hand for  *gameplay*. Implementing accurate armour and weapons for the tank would destroy the balance that is in the game. IRL it is almost impossible for infantry to destroy MBTs and implementing that in the game would suck game-wise. I think that they have implemented a pretty good blend of realism and gameplay.<span id='postcolor'>

That's what i was trying to say.  

[Hardliner 0]

Abrams take 6 hits? the most it took from me was 4 hits. I downloaded a custom T80B tank with AT-8/Songster missiles and I can take an Abrams out from afar while it can't hit me and it takes 2 hits to destroy it even on frontal armor. I was overjoyed at this

[Beagle 684]

As I said before:

Realistic representation of armour would not make ist imposible for Infantrie to disable tanks, in fact it would make ist easier, as long as the RL tactics are aplied.

A single TOW (Carl Gustav in Game) will easily disable a Tank when fired at the rear, at pressent it's imposible to do that, because it needs 2 (T-80) or three (M1).

Tanks are nealy "soft" targets from Behind...I've seen that oftern enought, theres not much armour at the rear. (100mm average, often below depends on Modell)

[Blake 0]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 21 2002,170)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most of the suggestions that are in this thread are correct and fine from a technical point of view. What I think people don't realise that the units in OFP are optimised in the first hand for  *gameplay*. Implementing accurate armour and weapons for the tank would destroy the balance that is in the game. IRL it is almost impossible for infantry to destroy MBTs and implementing that in the game would suck game-wise. I think that they have implemented a pretty good blend of realism and gameplay.<span id='postcolor'>

I think you're wrong. Since when extra realism has stripped away all the fun? Would OFP be boring if it had some of Steel Beasts' accuracy, like realistic damage model?. No.

I'm saying make it even somwhat realistic, like creating weak spots for modern MBTs as they have in real life. That takes tactics and thinking to do the job as you have to move to position facing tank's vulnerable position. Taking 6 shots no matter what position make tanks look like end-of-level baddies from Quake.

I agree with mr. Beagle 100% here.

[WKK Gimbal 0]

But really, now you are discussing totally new additions to the tank simulation. The prupose of this topic was simply to list some very simple but annoying glitches and present them in a straight forward way. All this discussion about super realism and hit zones for each track link will make any programmer ignore the thread and the simple issues that could be fixed to improve gameplay.

[eskimo jackson 0]

if only the driver would respond to my commands *sigh*

i could live with the targeting issues if only he would go right when i order right ..

*sigh*

[benreeper 0]

Nobody has mentioned the words CPU and strain. You can have all of this if you:

1.Give up the infantry aspect of the game.

2. " " " aircraft " " " ".

3. " " " sea " " " ".

4.give up everything about the game and make a tank sim.

If you want to make the tanks better against infantry have no infantry in your missions.

[WKK Gimbal 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (benreeper @ April 22 2002,21:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nobody has mentioned the words CPU and strain.  You can have all of this if you:

1.Give up the infantry aspect of the game.

2. "     "   "     aircraft  "         "  "     ".

3. "     "   "     sea       "         "  "     ".

4.give up everything about the game and make a tank sim.

If you want to make the tanks better against infantry have no infantry in your missions.<span id='postcolor'>

The changes would actually free up CPU as they would be:

Not having target calling in tanks (less CPU used for speech)

Not having the driver disobey (Less CPU used for AI pathfinding)

I've noticed if you are BOTH turned out AND set your crew to At Ease (7-4) they will drive even nicer than if just turned out and aware.

This way they drive quite nice when there's no combat. The problem is only that they disobey arrow key move orders while under fire.

So it could just be changed, so only when using arrow keys, the AI will follow move orders blindly and mechanically. (i.e. during combat) and when at ease, they will be like they are now (trying to avoid abstacles, etc).

This way you can still direct them by clicking on the map and they'll find the way themselves. When using arrow keys, they will follow directly.

Completely different thing:

Someone wrote they had trouble when platoon member's tank was disabled and the ejected crew would slow down the platoon.

Just tell the left over crew to stop, and they will just be left behind and ignored, not slowing the move.

If AI leads the platoon, just make triggers that un-joins a crewmember from the group when out of his tank.

[nyles 11]

that was me.

I know it this could be an option and even if I'm not a U.S. Ranger, I kinda disagree about "leaving a man behind" and would still love to see that sparse seat of the loader to be made accessible in the form of a single "ride in back" seat which is empty by default when spawning a tank, but could be manned later on during a mission. This won't screw up any missions as the default crew number would still be the same.

I'm with you on most other of your comments though Gimbal.

[Flash Burn 0]

I just wanna say where do you get 100mm of rear armor on a modern tank from? thats like 3 and a half inches of armor. do you realize an m60 only has 120 mm of armor on the front? i would be shocked if a modern tank like an m1 has more than 30mm of actual high grade steal in the rear. I bet its closer to 25mm if even that. tanks take 75% of hits to there front, wouldnt you rather have an extra 3 inches of steal up there than in the back? Of course you would. Which is why they do. tanks only take about 10% of hits in the arse the rest to the sides. Teh m1 is a good tank but its not unbeatable. im sure a bmp could kill an m1 from the rear with its 30mm cannon.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Flash Burn @ April 22 2002,22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just wanna say where do you get 100mm of rear armor on a modern tank from?  thats like 3 and a half inches of armor.  do you realize an m60 only has 120 mm of armor on the front?  i would be shocked if a modern tank like an m1 has more than 30mm of actual high grade steal in the rear. I bet its closer to 25mm if even that.  tanks take 75% of hits to there front, wouldnt you rather have an extra 3 inches of steal up there than in the back?  Of course you would.  Which is why they do.  tanks only take about 10% of hits in the arse the rest to the sides.  Teh m1 is a good tank but its not unbeatable.  im sure a bmp could kill an m1 from the rear with its 30mm cannon.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't know about the Abrams, but the T-80 has an average of 600 mm conventional armour + add ERA to that. I bet that the Abrams has the same order of magnitude of armour.

T80 Armour

[Aaron Kane 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ April 21 2002,08:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpaceAlex @ April 21 2002,02:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ April 21 2002,00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm confident that some shots will hurt even modern MBT's from the rear.<span id='postcolor'>

Damage yes, destroy no. <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

M1 ammo is stored in the rear as well as engine (with fuel of course). What else do you need to ignite it all? A well placed firecracker in the form of a rocket launcher. Remember, as I said before, i modified the M1 so that only rear area explodes but the crew manages to jump out. Fair enough?<span id='postcolor'>

Now did you make it so that the modified Abrams is a new vehicle, or has the original Abrams inherited these qualities? If so, I'm gonna do some editing myself.

[eskimo jackson 0]

i dont know if it was mentioned before , if so nevermind. when you are the driver you will find that driving on a slope you simply cant stop the tank propperly to change to the gunners or commanders position. i find it hard to believe that you cant stop a tank on the spot even on a very slight slope while the AI driver can do exactly that just fine. furthermore the tanks and infact all other vehicles tend to gain so much speed downhill that they become virtually impossible to handle. it wouldnt be a problem if the brakes would function propperly while driving downhill. sometimes you stand on the brake all the way downhill and nothing happens ... again , i find it hard to believe that a tank would take off a ramp like a stuntcar , flying tens of meters high through the air.

this is a general problem which really needs to be adressed

[Totala 0]

In repply to DENOIR stating "I don't know about the Abrams, but the T-80 has an average of 600 mm conventional armour + add ERA to that." ... 600 mm simply sounds impossible to me ! Anyone having the real numbers ??  

[nyles 11]

no..more..armour..value..discussion..in..THIS..thread. kthxnbibi...sigh.

Why have you people to ruin every attempt of presenting some issues which could/should/whatever be changed, by loosing yourself in pointless discussions about one specific point which comes up in here? I mean, most of you think that they are right anyways and therefore won't get away from their point of view. Its just pointless to talk about stuff like this in such an environment.

I think you already succeeded in making this thread very unattractive for either BIS or those people that actually have some pretty good ideas. This is indeed intended as a flame, so please take it exactly like this. Sorry, but having EVERY thread develop into what we have in here now, is more than frustrating. Its kinda disrespective to the creater of the thread and those that actually gave some feedback.

[Ether Dragon 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ April 21 2002,01:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">M1 ammo is stored in the rear as well as engine (with fuel of course). What else do you need to ignite it all? A well placed firecracker in the form of a rocket launcher.<span id='postcolor'>

That's simply not true. The majority of the M-1's ammo is stored in the rear of the turret. Blow out panels on top of the turret insure that if the ammo does get hit and explode, it will blow out the top of the turret without harming the crew inside. Testing has shown the system works very well at this.

It's been too long, I don't recall now how many rounds the tank carries in it's hull, but it does carry some spares, located in two different locations. Both areas are well protected by the tank's main armor. If they were to get hit, chances are the crew would be dead before they were threatened by an ammo explosion.

As for the fuel, the M-1 has three seperate fuel tanks, two in front on either side of the driver, and the main tank in the rear. None of them are directly next to the hull ammo. The two front tanks are very well protected, simply due to the tanks frontal armor protection and design. The rear tank might be less protected, mainly due to it's size. In addition, the M-1 series has an excellent anti-fire system. Sensors monitor for flames and release a halon system that's very effective and knocking out fires. One last thing that's important to note when it comes to fire - both the fuel and ammo of the M-1 are fairly resistant to fire. M-1's main gun rounds require electricity to set them off, and the normal fuel is Diesel, which doesn't burn well.

Now then, shooting an M-1 tank from the rear might stop it from moving, but it won't keep it from shooting back. The most you can expect from a rear shot is to knock out the engine. The engine itself can be viewed as additional armor for all intents and purposes. Even if you penetrate the rear armor, you still have to drive through about eight feet of engine to get to the turret. The turret will still be functional. Even after the battery power gives out, it still has manual controls to allow the turning and firing of the turret. I really don't expect a LAW or RPG could knock out the turret, for that matter. You could make the crew uncomfortable, but you couldn't keep them from retaliating.

The true vulnerability of any tank lies in it's top armor, not it's rear. If you can get a shot at the tank from above, that's where you can hope to be effective. It's the main reason that artillery and air attack is feared by armor units. That doesn't really help a LAW/RPG user, as they're very unlikely to find themselves in a postition above a tank (except in city warfare - another dislike for tanks.)

As for flammability, don't count on it too much. In battle, the M-1 stocks white phosperous smoke grenades - and they're not afraid to wander through their own flammable smoke fields. In fact, if a tank finds itself burdened by unwanted passengers, they might just "run the tank through the wash" by popping a grenade overhead and running the enemy infantry through the incendiary smoke. The only problem with that is the crew would lose their clean uniforms in the external stowage racks.

Simply put, the LAW and RPG were not made to handle the M-1 or T-80 tanks. They were produced well before either tank, and the tanks made them obsolete instead. New infantry anti-tank weapons replaced the two outdated weapon types. At the time of OFP, however, the infantry wasn't too well equipped to handle modern MBT's. The LAW's are still practical because many armies continue to use older equipment from the LAW's hey-day, and there's always lighter armor vehicles like APC's besides.

I'm sure Nyles just loves me for wandering off topic in his post.

[nyles 11]

I love you!

/me hugs Ether Dragon.

Anyways, its Gimbals post, I just added my suggestions.