Flak 36 (and of course Howitzer) cancellation...

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Smokaz]

Plus again the time it  takes a unupgraded squad or a jeep to kill a 88 truck is just too short anyhow, even if demons commander had went over with him 10 times at hq how to take out a 88

[Grenadier1945]

err. bundle a couple nades and pop them in the barrel of the FLAK. finished? common sense much?

I apologise Demon if it seems like I'm singling you out, I'm not, but seriously guys? Are we desperate enough to pull the realism card already?

AFAIK the only reason the flak even builds is that in Relic's infinite wisdom it was concluded that the gun shouldn't move, even though we know real ones had wheels or they'd have been next to useless. Ideally, the gun would move in just like a PaK which is also far too heavy to be pushed around, let alone by two men.

Besides that fact, a realistic 88 battery is not a glass cannon toted around by a chevy s10. I'd like to see Mr. Rifleman try to spike a gun protected by these guys:


At the very least, I'm begging that manually halting the build and driving off the field safely retain the unit's xp just like any other vehicle or squad, as I would continue to try that when I realise it's in danger. It only makes sense.

[Spartan_Marine88]

responding to wall of text

All im going to say is this, realism in this game isn't there for gameplay reasons.

A single rifle squad would have the capability to take out an 88 (be it usage of satchel charge, they would have at least 1, bazooka, stick of dynamite.) REMOVAL OR BREAKING OF FIRING PIN! (or other key small part).

Seeing as how this is a simplified form of combat, it wouldn't make sense to make rifles impotent against the 88 truck or the 88 itself.

[Mysthalin]

Yes, because it's common sense that the 88 would be utterly destroyed by a grenade, with all of it's killing power being shrapnel, when it sustains all that pure force from when it's actually firing the shells.

Yes, common sense.

[Grundwaffe]

Yes, because it's common sense that the 88 would be utterly destroyed by a grenade, with all of it's killing power being shrapnel, when it sustains all that pure force from when it's actually firing the shells.

Yes, common sense.

lol

[MittinsKittens]

+1. Mys just won this thread, I didn't even think about that XD

[Spartan_Marine88]

Yes, because it's common sense that the 88 would be utterly destroyed by a grenade, with all of it's killing power being shrapnel, when it sustains all that pure force from when it's actually firing the shells.

Yes, common sense.

A common grenade actually has to explode, which sends the shrapnel at high velocity. That explosion that sends the shrapnel out at high speeds wouldn't be limited only to just the part that becomes shrapnel, but the barrel also. The heat created from the small but powerful blast, plus the impact of high velocity metal shards would have a decent chance of gouging, denting and warping a barrel.

[Mysthalin]

A common grenade actually has to explode, which sends the shrapnel at high velocity. That explosion that sends the shrapnel out at high speeds wouldn't be limited only to just the part that becomes shrapnel, but the barrel also. The heat created from the small but powerful blast, plus the impact of high velocity metal shards would have a decent chance of gouging, denting and warping a barrel.

Common shell propelant has to explode, which sends the shell at high velocity. That explosion that sends the shell out of the barrel at high speeds wouldn't be limited to just pushing the shell, but to affecting the barrel and firing mechanism also. The heat created from the huge and powerful blast, plus the pressure of super-heated gas should have a decent chance of gouging, denting and warping a barrel and firing mechanism.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Common shell propelant has to explode, which sends the shell at high velocity. That explosion that sends the shell out of the barrel at high speeds wouldn't be limited to just pushing the shell, but to affecting the barrel and firing mechanism also. The heat created from the huge and powerful blast, plus the pressure of super-heated gas should have a decent chance of gouging, denting and warping a barrel and firing mechanism.

Of course, point is a group of rifles could destroy the 88

[Mysthalin]

I think you missed my point, Spartan - gun barrels are made to withstand explosive forces. A grenade would, at the very most - impair the accuracy or the muzzle velocity of the gun, if even that - most likely the shrapnel would simply hit the sides of the gun barrel and scratch them a bit - while the rest fly out the end of the gun or residue at the bottom of it(which would make them piss easy to clean out).


As for filling the barrel with dirt - what do you think is more likely to give way to the pressure wave - some dirt, or a solid metal barrel? Yeah, I'll go with the dirt being fairly useless in disabling a gun.

[Smokaz]

fact is 88s are too easy to take out while building

[Spartan_Marine88]

fact is 88s are too easy to take out while building

so are bofors, 17 pdrs, mg nests, howitzers and bunkers

[RoyalHants]

so are bofors, 17 pdrs, mg nests, howitzers and bunkers

no where near as tough to kill when built

[Smokaz]

they dont represent the same level of investment tbh, plus they can relocate

[Spartan_Marine88]

they dont represent the same level of investment tbh, plus they can relocate

only 17 pdr can

[FailHammer]

Gameplay>realism for the 1millionth time.

Yes truck is kinda easy to take out, but its good cause you cant just plop it down anywhere likes its a huge metal cock.

Solution--> give truck a little more health, not too much and for God Almightys sake no more armor. Boom, thread is done. Youre welcome.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Gameplay>realism for the 1millionth time.

Yes truck is kinda easy to take out, but its good cause you cant just plop it down anywhere likes its a huge metal cock.

Solution--> give truck a little more health, not too much and for God Almightys sake no more armor. Boom, thread is done. Youre welcome.

I can get on board with that

[VERTIGGO]

Yes, because it's common sense that the 88 would be utterly destroyed by a grenade, with all of it's killing power being shrapnel, when it sustains all that pure force from when it's actually firing the shells.

Nice one Myst! You just owned these noobs. At any rate I have to say it's not all about realism, it's about EIRR. In EIRR do riflemen throw grenades down a Tiger's barrel? I think not. I think gren's just exaggerating to show how silly it all is. What really matters, is that it is not only too expensive to be gibbed by a jeep, but it's essentially the kingpin of most defensive companies... they're built around it.

I think the best idea is that the crew walk on and build it. Think about it. Howitzers and FlaKs are both crewed weapons, which means the instant they are built, they can be retreated off the map. They should be able to do that at any point in their lifespan, just like every single other crewed weapon. Tanks can be driven off the map so as to save veterancy, so if it must be a truck, it should be able to drive off to save vet just the same. If the truck option, then it does need some more health, because it's just a completely imbalanced investment/survivability ratio at the moment.

Either way, the defensive player saves his prize unit, and the opponents have the reward that they have driven it from the field. Having the thing completely vulnerable and weak for an arbitrary moment during the battle is merely catering to griefing, which may be entertaining for one side, but is definitely not an important or beneficial part of EIRR.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Just one point about frag grenades, its killing power is actually usually in the explosive blast created by the grenade going off. Frag was originally designed not to kill but to maim.

the entire theory is summed up by this

1 man dead is 1 man dead
1 man horribly wounded is multiple men out, the casualty the doctor(s), multiple nurses also medical supplies spent.

The main point is a grenade about say 5 centimeters in length detonating in a 8.8 centimeter barrel does not really leave alot of room for the explosion to expand causing possible damage (i am not saying its gaurenteed, but possible) Personally i would ratherstack as much of the 88's ammo around the base of the cannon as i had time too, drop a grenade or other explosive in the middle and run like hell

unless you all believe that frags are spring loaded

Back on topic, the 88 truck being destroyed in my opinion shouldn't kill the unit just deny it for the rest of the battle

[brn4meplz]

A fragmentation grenade kills through Fragmentation not blast.

Shells and bombs kill through blast. you can be a mere few feet froma  fragmentation grenade and be alive on the merit that you got lucky enough to avoid fragmentation.

Also the standard Mk II pineapple grenade is roughly 60mm across leaving you 28mm of room for the spoon to eject.(not enough) You could remove the spoon prior to dropping it down the barrel but the grenade won't go far. Again your expending blast force out the end of a barrel. a small blast is only made less effective if it isn't contained.

Also if i could guarantee that the fragmentation would not kill me I'd stack shells and set off a frag near them. I don't think anything would happen. un-primed shells can only cook off due to excessive heat exposure or pressure(a blast). unless someone knows what their doing with the shells thats not a very good solution.

Back on topic the general strength of these weapons in EiRR is counter balanced by their fragility when setting them up