LeoPhone
Honoured Member
 Posts: 0
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 15, 2010, 03:49:56 pm » |
|
ugh it is so simple...
tank traps placed on the map before battle give green cover. tank traps you build with engineers DONT give green cover. IT IS THE EXACT SAME AS IN VCOH. CASE CLOSED.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| 101stGG
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 15, 2010, 05:05:10 pm » |
|
This is EIR Related Discussion forum. Are players not allowed to discuss tank trap?
Steel cover. Good feature to implement. Are you a developer?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| EliteGren
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 15, 2010, 05:08:23 pm » |
|
Tanktraps are for blocking tanks. They do not provide cover in vCoH and not in EIR either, and there is not reason they should.
If you want cover, build sandbags - plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
i prefer to no u
Don't knock it til uve tried it bitchface, this isn't anything like salads version. Besides u said a semois conversion would never work, now look that's the most played map, ohgodwhy.jpg r u map lead
 |
|
|
Groundfire
EIRR community manager
EIR Veteran Posts: 8511
|
|
« Reply #23 on: November 15, 2010, 05:13:13 pm » |
|
bleh, what's with all the negative energies?
101stGG, it is a good idea, but something like this is so down low on the priorities list that we havent even considered it.
If it aint broke, dont fix it. There's no reason to. Sandbags are faster to build over TTs anyways. You wont find you have much time to build many TTs in EIR to make the green cover thing worth while, or have it have any noticeable impact on the game.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| 101stGG
|
|
« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2010, 05:15:44 pm » |
|
Good. But you miss rationale. Vehicles run over sandbags. Tank traps are steel. Should provide cover just like the official patch that fixes original COH bug.
Nice feature to update mod.
I say this because some lvl 9 player rush vehicles and blob units behind. Airborne can build tank traps fast when arrive on the field. Makes good first encounter counter strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LeoPhone
Honoured Member
Posts: 0
|
|
« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2010, 05:21:01 pm » |
|
tank traps are ment to give a DISADVANTAGE to the enemy, not give them green cover.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
brn4meplz
Misinformation Officer
 Posts: 6952
|
|
« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2010, 08:03:12 pm » |
|
Then put wire on his side, that way he has to cut it or drive a vehicle up to crush it.
Tank traps are a disadvantage, to vehicles. It just so happens that concrete Dragons Teeth or Steel Hedgehogs put a good amount of bullet stopping shit in front of you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
He thinks Tactics is a breath mint Wow I think that was the nicest thing brn ever posted!  the pussy of a prostitute is not tight enough for destroy a condom  |
|
|
Malevolence
Donator
 Posts: 1871
|
|
« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2010, 08:50:44 pm » |
|
Depends on the infantry, tactics used etc.
Tanks greatest enemy was an up close infantryman.
Well, if we're talking realism, you know a marine tanker friend of mine's favorite analogy for what it's like trying to kill a tank as an infantryman? You and your buddies are wearing white suits and armed with black markers. The tank is a guy with one of those BFG 9000 supersoakers full of ink, and has only a few patches of white on his clothing. The objective is to put ink on the white parts of the opponents' clothing. Start ~50 feet away. That is roughly the effectiveness of infantry against tanks. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Akranadas' Greatest Hits, Volume 1: Vet has nothing to do with unit preformance. We are serious about enforcing this, and I am sure you all want to be able to have your balance thought considered by the development team with some biased, sensationalist coming into your thread and ruining it. |
|
|
AmPM
Community Mapper
 Posts: 7978
|
|
« Reply #28 on: November 15, 2010, 09:06:03 pm » |
|
Unless the enemy has say, an AT-4 or Jav/Dragon...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 . . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
Malevolence
Donator
Posts: 1871
|
|
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2010, 12:32:24 am » |
|
Including an AT-4 or Jav/Dragon, I'd imagine.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AmPM
Community Mapper
Posts: 7978
|
|
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2010, 02:36:55 am » |
|
Jav is specially designed to penetrate and kill an Abrams, since the Abrams is the toughest thing out there. It was tested on them specifically.
Tanks go down, just not to things like RPG's anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Malevolence
Donator
Posts: 1871
|
|
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2010, 03:26:34 am » |
|
That's nice. He's driven a tank, you haven't. I'll take his word on how dangerous a tank is regardless of the available anti-tank technology that I am sure he is very aware of.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AmPM
Community Mapper
Posts: 7978
|
|
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2010, 03:30:30 am » |
|
And how many times has he taken fire from a 1st World Countries AT weaponry?
I mean I'm just curious.
Saying a tank is nigh invulnerable vs say, Afghanis and Iraqis is one thing. Against our own AT technology its not.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| 101stGG
|
|
« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2010, 03:41:57 am » |
|
Tha is why steel cover is important. Gives AT Airborne a slight advantage. Usualy more than one AT recoiless in the field. Taking down vehicles is easy. Tanks, not so much.
Steel cover should also give precious seconds before AT Infantry get mowed down by anti infantry untill 50 cal is deployed or team mate brings more rifles, quad, etc. Tank traps is basic doctrine for Airborne - Funeling Tactics. You are not expected to bring a lot of engineers to the field to make up for the time it takes to build them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
