our discussion is pointless, the game will develop either way and will be divided to different game modes, arcade realistic simulation etc.
Why should I even care that you havenât used EPs since merge?
I am using them all the time.
Itâs strange that someone who doesnât even use the item that is the main subject of this discussion has a high interest in getting it changed. No comment :))
Who cares? It proves nothing.
âI use the weapon you think is too strong all the time and imo itâs fineâ +100 social credit
Because imo they are detremental to the gameplay.
I didnât need to spam impact nades to want them nerfed. I donât need to use explosive packs to want them changed.
2 Likes
You sure the people who complain in 1 and 3 are the same people?
Yeah, because proving anything was definitely my point. I said that because your statement proves nothing. Your response doesnât make sense in the context of why I said it. Youâre just being manipulative here.
Yes, in your opinion. But your opinion is not very relevant since you have not much experiences using them. 
And youâre probably not very active in the tank either, or youâd know that non fatal damage from EP happens quite often now. Especially if the enemy dont know how to cook EPs properly and you have to move away from him.
Proper use of EP is now rewarded. But if this suggestion will pass, the skill would no longer make a difference.
And why? For the sake of immersion.
Letâs cripple the thing what makes the game a game for the sake of pseudo casual milsim experience.
But this is where the community gets conflicted, when you come up with a solution for âTNT OPâ to keep tanks off the battlefield, but at the same time itâs another topic complaining about.
Do tanks exist to cover infantry attacks or as HE gun positions? Both sides have a lot of player support and hope that the game will be further modified to what they want.
3 Likes
You: EP are needed for balance
Me: no they arent, look
You: manipulation!!!
But your opinion is relevant because reasons.
Ok, point for you.
The game is casual, youâve said it yourself multiple times.
So complaining about lack of skill, immersion and âcasual milism experienceâ is quite ironic.
3 Likes
When did I say that?
Yet another manipulation.
Ah, sorry. It was cripple the gameplay, not balance. Though still I donât see how.
1 Like
Iâve already explained it to you.
People expecting to use tanks to closely support infantry shouldnât expect to survive long.
A tankâs survivability when fighting closely with infantry is dependent on the infantry dealing with AT threats because a tank has limited line of sight in exchange for immunity to small arms fire and a cannon. If the infantry cannot (and they usually donât) protect a tank, then that tank is liable to get attacked outside its field of view and blown up.
The viability of closely supporting infantry vs attacking from long range is dependent on the map, the player and the tank.
Tanks can fill both hats, but whether or not that hat is viable varies.
2 Likes
Imo risk/reward is too good for explosive packs but I see you donât agree.
I wonât argue further.
3 Likes
uh yeah because they sit in the greyzone and spam HE.
Dynamite should not blow up a whole tank, period end of story. Disable, sure. Destroy? No.
2 Likes
a tank can be dominant without sitting in gray zone, just requires the tanker to know how to press w and ad to get away from the 2 meter kill radius of det packs
1 Like
If you really think that eliminating explosive packs would make for better gameplay and that tanks wouldnât still spam HE from the gray zone⌠Iâve got some land to sell you.
3 Likes
AT Guns.
Tanks.
Aircraft.
Actually marking enemy tanks for these things to destroy.
Also bug the devs to allow recon squads to enter the gray zone.
you mean sniper squads also all squads can enter the gray zone just that they will take quick damage after a few seconds (not enough time to go get a tank deep in the gray zone)
also
â trusting teammates to get the job done for antitank
i want that shit dead i have to do it myself but hey since you need a counter for det packs here is a tip for you
1 Like
never ending merry go round
Det packs nerfed ages ago
as some say learn to drive,
i my self have come across tankers that, can avoid det packs
quite annoying actually, that i have to use whole squads det pack, 1 each, to try and take out a tank, every time, he just reversed or moved forward, avoided 5x det packs, so yeah,
many complain when it used against them,
all wanting it removed/nerfed again, det pack, to make taking out a tank,
dependent on some one else taking out a tank, that only has a AT is BS
if i am in game with 2 real people and rest bots,
you want me to pray that someone will just suicide to get a AT squad, to take out the tank,
making it a squad of AT that can only take out tanks.
what if some one doesnât have AT researched, or there too low AT, to do anything anyway
Just like most of stuff suggested, it only helps one person, u, in the tank.
Seem to remember that det packs once killed everything, most complained that it was used on INF, you got that nerfed, so det packs do what they do, if you can not avoid them, donât drive.
2 Likes
Yet we RARELY see them used, and rather, explosive packs are used all the damn time!
Again, the molotov already fills this role, but without the capability to insta-kill it. That is one of the primary issues here.
Many of them were designed to push the frontline WITH the infantry. Not to sit back and act as artillery.
And following this logic, what about radio operators? They can sit in a bunker all game, call in artillery bombs that cannot be stopped, and get tons of kills, or call in a squad of planes that canât even be shot down by a player using AA.
One squad, with even less risk, with potenitally an even higher rewardâŚ
But I digress.
Exactly.
Which, lets face it, is likely the predominate reason you are fighting against their removal so much is it not?
100%
He may not, but I do. They are far too powerful. It makes the game FAR too easy.
It makes it so that players have an âall in oneâ grenade that can be used by ANY soldier type, making them ALL into counters for the tanks. Instead of needing something specific like an AT soldier, or having to plan in advance, like with the AT mines.
PURELY run-and-gun enabling.
Except for the fact that this was the reality!
One of the primary issues here that I feel you are failing to account for, is that in reality, they had multiple individuals operating various machineguns that fired from various parts of the tank.
Within the game, the player is only really able to operate looking a single direction. The MGs (that have AI sitting behind them mind you), donât function independently, as they should. Since this was what protected the tank from infantry running up to it from the front.
The very thing that made them absolutely devastating when used on narrow streets, especially when combined with very heavy frontal armor.
It meant that flanking with AT launchers or satchel charges, OR mining the road with TNT in advance were needed to kill them.
Instead of being able to pull out and toss a grenade from the front of the tank that kills the behemoth.
YUP. Not a lot of risk when you have 3 of them on most of your soldiers.
By comparison, if you only have one or two AT guys in your squad, the risk gets considerably higher.
4 Likes
Immobilised vehicles that force their crew to bail is actually very great for ww2 immersion.
TNT should much easier destroy tracks, molotov cocktails should much easier overheat engines.
Handheld AT weapons should very easily take out vehicles - however they should overall deal less damage to a crew than actual anti tank guns.
4 Likes