Tanks too op against infantry

[Party San]

The tanks have a too big view cone. If the dudes are in the tank their vision should be narrowed significantly - there is mosrly a front slit in the front of the tank IRL from what I recollect.

The cone should be like it is now, ONLY when a dude has popped out the hatch to look around.

This way tanks would have to be more careful, especially at night.

Also, the Colly ignifist is utter dog sh*te, I have no words for how bad it is. I recon IRL when a rocket shot to the track system will disable a tank at least 9/10 times.

[Colonel Bogey]

Probably fair points, but, it’s a game not a simulator and it doesn’t give one side an advantage over the other.

[Party San]

Originally posted by Colonel Bogey:

Probably fair points, but, it’s a game not a simulator and it doesn’t give one side an advantage over the other.

Well, looking at the [infantry] shooting mechanic (with the cone, and innacurate fire when moving), it is currently more of a simulator than an arcade game.
Its inconsistent - either make the shooting more arcadey, or make the tanks less OP.

Its wierd the way it is now TBH, but thats just my opinion.

I would say even going 50% on the tank nerf would be great.

Also, I wouldnt be surprised if you main tanks, which is why you have the point of view you do.

The tank nerf would make it so, that a tank would not be able to move into combat, unless it had a spotter - that way no more 2 man tanks, but 3 man tanks.

[Samadhi]

Originally posted by c0llector:

Originally posted by Colonel Bogey:

Probably fair points, but, it’s a game not a simulator and it doesn’t give one side an advantage over the other.

Well, looking at the [infantry] shooting mechanic (with the cone, and innacurate fire when moving), it is currently more of a simulator than an arcade game.
Its inconsistent - either make the shooting more arcadey, or make the tanks less OP.

Its wierd the way it is now TBH, but thats just my opinion.

I would say even going 50% on the tank nerf would be great.

Also, I wouldnt be surprised if you main tanks, which is why you have the point of view you do.

The tank nerf would make it so, that a tank would not be able to move into combat, unless it had a spotter - that way no more 2 man tanks, but 3 man tanks.

Tanks are easy to beat as infantry, thats why tanks need infantry to protect them, lol.

[Party San]

Originally posted by Samadhi:

Originally posted by c0llector:

Well, looking at the [infantry] shooting mechanic (with the cone, and innacurate fire when moving), it is currently more of a simulator than an arcade game.
Its inconsistent - either make the shooting more arcadey, or make the tanks less OP.

Its wierd the way it is now TBH, but thats just my opinion.

I would say even going 50% on the tank nerf would be great.

Also, I wouldnt be surprised if you main tanks, which is why you have the point of view you do.

The tank nerf would make it so, that a tank would not be able to move into combat, unless it had a spotter - that way no more 2 man tanks, but 3 man tanks.

Tanks are easy to beat as infantry, thats why tanks need infantry to protect them, lol.

Anything is easy to beat with enough numbers on one sides. The tanks arent that easy to destroy - how many ignis to down a tank totally? More that 3 for sure, I seen enemy tank, tank 3 ignis and still be able to retreat.

The sticky has a very short range of throw. I get it why it is why it is, but Im just saying.

Now a tank will do fine on it own againt say 5 - 6 infantry - take down them using machine gun and turret shot. What is more, with the existing viewing cone it will easily pull back when it sees danger.

Only with visibility nerf the tanks would need to have serious infantry support.

[Colonel Bogey]

Originally posted by c0llector:

Also, I wouldnt be surprised if you main tanks, which is why you have the point of view you do.

Only logistics at the moment, so I’m coming from a position of ignorance.

[Party San]

Originally posted by Colonel Bogey:

Originally posted by c0llector:

Also, I wouldnt be surprised if you main tanks, which is why you have the point of view you do.

Only logistics at the moment, so I’m coming from a position of ignorance.

All good dude, just try going against a tank and perphaps youll see what I mean.

Not everyone will share my POv surely, and ultimately no matter what I or others say, its up to devs to see if this has merit or not.

[Smetrix]

You won’t really be able to 1 v 1 a tank, not even IRL unless you get the element of surprise lol.

Combat is kinda like Rock Paper Scissors, AT beats tanks, tanks beat infantry, infantry beats infantry, etc.

If you have no AT, or people to back you up, then naturally you’re going to not last long against a tank.

[Samadhi]

Originally posted by c0llector:

Originally posted by Colonel Bogey:

Only logistics at the moment, so I’m coming from a position of ignorance.

All good dude, just try going against a tank and perphaps youll see what I mean.

Not everyone will share my POv surely, and ultimately no matter what I or others say, its up to devs to see if this has merit or not.

Yep, disabled a tank as infantry, gun move slow and sticky bomb goes boom.
If you refer to tanks with MGs, well duh, thats why they were there, to SUPPORT the infantry in trench warfare.

Logically, if tanks beat tanks and tanks beat infantry, why have infantry?

Most of what you present as facts to base your argument on seem to be opinions based on your recollections and your imagination of how armour penetration works.

[Samadhi]

Originally posted by Smetrix:

You won’t really be able to 1 v 1 a tank, not even IRL unless you get the element of surprise lol.

True, but a disabled tank is a dead tank anyway.

[Metalsiren IXI]

spam gas grenades and tankers fall back 95% of the time imo. Problem is people dont seem to want to use this tactic. I held back a heavy tank for a few attempts using only a 30mm cannon lol.

[Party San]

Originally posted by Smetrix:

You won’t really be able to 1 v 1 a tank, not even IRL unless you get the element of surprise lol.

Combat is kinda like Rock Paper Scissors, AT beats tanks, tanks beat infantry, infantry beats infantry, etc.

If you have no AT, or people to back you up, then naturally you’re going to not last long against a tank.

Never said I want to 1v1 a tank, I wrote that a tank will easily kill 5-6 infantry.
Sure that is how it probably would be in real life, but in real life the dude in the tank would only see through his slit, and have a small cone, whcih is why 1 tank vs 5-6 infantry, when infantry goes into ambush - dude in tank should not see all around.

Only with binocs when lookout out through the trap door.

Also in real life one rocket to the tracks = disabled tank.

Which is why infantry along with tanks would be much much more important than it is now in the game.

If one infantry would approach a tank from the side, the tank SHOULD NOT SEE HIM, unless there is a dude with binocs, or other infantry there to alert the dudes in the tank.
Otherwise it is plain silly and OP as fook.

So make up your minds, either we going for simulation or arcade, not simulation options for some, arcade for others.

Now you get tanks driving willy nilly where they want cause:
A) They see all around
B) One shot to tracks does not track a tank

[Smetrix]

True, but the drivers range is very limited, so they need to rely on the commander and the gunner to see for them, the driver cannot zoom.

[Party San]

Originally posted by Smetrix:

True, but the drivers range is very limited, so they need to rely on the commander and the gunner to see for them, the driver cannot zoom.

This feature (or tank nerf) is good only against other tanks or vehicles, that have a bigger range. It does not matter as much to infantry, cause infantry has much much lower shooting radius than a tank (im fine with that) - which is why the title - tank too OP against infantry - because in other aspects I mentioned it is too buff.

The infantry igni has much lower range (which is fine), not sure about the bane?

Any how you would get 2 narrow cones - the drivers narrow cone - just looking straight,
and the shooter cone, which would be a little bit wider, plus he could rotate like he does now, turn the cannon around to scout the area. Also the general that pops out with bino.

This would prevent tanks from sitting comfotable on their asses near bridges (with easy water crossing to the sides).

[BlazingScribe]

Greetings!

I've spent a long time playing with tanks in this game, and have had opportunities to crew almost all of the combat vehicles on the Warden's side (never been in a Noble Widow because I prefer more mobile designs, but have driven, gunned, or spotted for everything else). I've run a handful of captured colonial vehicles too.

First, Tanks can't actually see as much as you may think they do. Only the commander can see more than the immediate surroundings of the tank, and even the gunner will frequently need to be told where to aim by the commander because they can't see their target unless its within about 35 meters. The driver has it even worse, only able to see around 20 to 25 meters around the vehicle. You comment that tanks shouldn't be able to see infantry behind them. Chances are, unless the commander or driver is looking in that direction, they probably won't see them until they get at least one shot off. Just for reference, rifle infantry can shoot about 40 meters.

Second, Tanks DO have to be careful, especially at night. It is common policy of most veteran crews to not operate beyond friendly lines at night because you can't see anything. Getting ambushed by infantry is a real and very dangerous probability, especially in lighter vehicles that can't survive more than a hit or two. Even heavier vehicles risk getting tracked or having their engines knocked out by a rogue anti-tank grenade or a mine, and if that happens they're screwed. That's why tank crews commonly ask for infantry support, to ward off those rushes while the crew is distracted dealing with enemy armor or defenses.

Third, the objective of infantry against tanks isn't really to kill them. That's nice, and is one of the ideal outcomes, but the immediate objective whenever a tank approaches is first to stop it and force it to retreat, and then to disable it if possible. Failing both of those things, you can wear it down. Hit a tank with even one rocket and they'll likely be forced back to for repairs. Strip off enough armor, and they may be forced to drive way back into friendly lines to find a garage to refurbish. Even better, if infantry can disable a tank, the crew is left scrambling trying to save their vehicle while the infantry can finish it off or attempt to capture it. Once that tank is disabled, its easy pickings for artillery, mortars, more AT infantry, or other armor.

Lastly, just to put this out here, infantry are dirt cheap, and so are many AT weapons. Stickies and Ignifists are a dime a dozen compared to a tank. It is really easy to equip 20 infantry compared to even a single armored vehicle. An armored vehicle mind you that requires a team that can communicate well to even be moderately effective. Compare that to handing Joe Schmoe a rifle and an ignifist and he's ready to roll. One ignifist isn't going to kill a tank, because it first appears and is made usable around the time that armored cars show up. If you want AT weapons that are designed to kill medium tanks, you want Banes, or better yet an AT platform.

https://foxhole.fandom.com/wiki/Vehicle_Health

This is a link describing how much punishment vehicles can take before being destroyed. Take of about a third of each value and you get about how much it takes to disable one.

TL:DR, tanks are formidable, and pain to kill if you're unprepared for them, but they aren't invincible or really overpowered. All it takes is one mistake from the crew and they can be overrun.

[Party San]

Originally posted by BlazingScribe:

Greetings!

I've spent a long time playing with tanks in this game, and have had opportunities to crew almost all of the combat vehicles on the Warden's side (never been in a Noble Widow because I prefer more mobile designs, but have driven, gunned, or spotted for everything else). I've run a handful of captured colonial vehicles too.

First, Tanks can't actually see as much as you may think they do. Only the commander can see more than the immediate surroundings of the tank, and even the gunner will frequently need to be told where to aim by the commander because they can't see their target unless its within about 35 meters. The driver has it even worse, only able to see around 20 to 25 meters around the vehicle. You comment that tanks shouldn't be able to see infantry behind them. Chances are, unless the commander or driver is looking in that direction, they probably won't see them until they get at least one shot off. Just for reference, rifle infantry can shoot about 40 meters.

Second, Tanks DO have to be careful, especially at night. It is common policy of most veteran crews to not operate beyond friendly lines at night because you can't see anything. Getting ambushed by infantry is a real and very dangerous probability, especially in lighter vehicles that can't survive more than a hit or two. Even heavier vehicles risk getting tracked or having their engines knocked out by a rogue anti-tank grenade or a mine, and if that happens they're screwed. That's why tank crews commonly ask for infantry support, to ward off those rushes while the crew is distracted dealing with enemy armor or defenses.

Third, the objective of infantry against tanks isn't really to kill them. That's nice, and is one of the ideal outcomes, but the immediate objective whenever a tank approaches is first to stop it and force it to retreat, and then to disable it if possible. Failing both of those things, you can wear it down. Hit a tank with even one rocket and they'll likely be forced back to for repairs. Strip off enough armor, and they may be forced to drive way back into friendly lines to find a garage to refurbish. Even better, if infantry can disable a tank, the crew is left scrambling trying to save their vehicle while the infantry can finish it off or attempt to capture it. Once that tank is disabled, its easy pickings for artillery, mortars, more AT infantry, or other armor.

Lastly, just to put this out here, infantry are dirt cheap, and so are many AT weapons. Stickies and Ignifists are a dime a dozen compared to a tank. It is really easy to equip 20 infantry compared to even a single armored vehicle. An armored vehicle mind you that requires a team that can communicate well to even be moderately effective. Compare that to handing Joe Schmoe a rifle and an ignifist and he's ready to roll. One ignifist isn't going to kill a tank, because it first appears and is made usable around the time that armored cars show up. If you want AT weapons that are designed to kill medium tanks, you want Banes, or better yet an AT platform.

https://foxhole.fandom.com/wiki/Vehicle_Health

This is a link describing how much punishment vehicles can take before being destroyed. Take of about a third of each value and you get about how much it takes to disable one.

TL:DR, tanks are formidable, and pain to kill if you're unprepared for them, but they aren't invincible or really overpowered. All it takes is one mistake from the crew and they can be overrun.

Listen, mortar fire does very little damage to tanks.

I get it you play tanks, and you dont want this change.

But I beg to differ, I play infantry against tanks and tanks are too OP as of now.
A tank should have to be careful at all times - now with the 360 OP view they have, they do not have to be as careful.
If you want to have 360- get the tank operators to leave the tank, or make the general pop out. Not like it is now.