Then dont do it. Quite simple.
Same pack can be renamed to 6kg tnt if that makes you happy.
C4 was invented between 1950-1960.
That would badly affect the throwing distance in the next nerf thread I guess. 
Composition C (AKA C-1,2,3,4) was invented in the 1940s… although… yes you are correct the 4th composition C was invented after 1950 so OK then C-3 explosives, C-3 is extremely similar to C-4 its just a little less reactive but in WW2 it was reactive enough for the thickness of armour they were dealing with, the difference between just increasing the dynamite payload and actually adding Comp C-3 would be the fact that when you throw it the clay-like substance sticks to the surface of the tank 99% of the time so tanks cant escape it, that would make it an amazing AT Gunner Grenade
or they could just name it “Composition C” to avoid confusion and just make the model a lump of clay with a detonator fuse sticking out of it.
Maybe there is a reason, it’s not like we are all mental (since there are plenty of people who thinks the same) and you guys right de facto, isn’t it? Can’t the idea that maybe we are just a tiny little right come across your minds? Every time we bring up this argument you guys got mad for no reason, start insulting people who are talking polite and sort, and that just confirms what @115466271 says, that you just enjoy being able with a squad to kill like 10 tank in a row as a goddamn terminator (very realistic for a fanbase who wants realism) Also, we talk about NERFING it a little, not deleting it.
and its not like im even saying grenades that instakill tanks should be removed its just they should be an AT Gunner Squad restricted item so only AT Gunners can equip the Comp C charge that can decimate tanks
My idea as I said countless of time is: either we nerf a little packs so they can destroy heaviest tanks only when placed underneath them and in the other cases just break the modules, or we add ONE(!!) more tank for each squad, increasing the max number of vehicles from 2 to 3, maybe giving also them working hull mgs and smoke grenades.
I don’t really know what’s so otrageous about saying that, it’s almost like I profaned something (maybe the fetish of some players of getting easy kills and being a tank ruler while a simple infantry squad with the littlest effort)
pretty much what im saying except for the extra tanker cap idea o.o’ that would most likely turn the game into a total shitshow cause then you’d have 1 tank able to cover every section of the field flanking would be hell on earth then and if they concentrated their fire it would be like a 24/7 bombing run…
while i agree there should be a mechanized light vehicle squad that can use many different vehicles like a halftrack with a flak cannon on it, jeeps with towed heavy artillery guns and maybe those new motorcycles that are in tunisia, more tanks would just be cringe… 2 is a healthy balance
3 tanks for squad aren’t that much, since a single squad could wipe them out. 4 tanks for squad yes, that would be too much
being able to drop a tank on every point is a little much if you end up taking the points it’l be nearly impossible to lose em if your tankers are half decently skilled
1 Like
Yeah maybe you are right
where most people end up losing a lot of tanks is when they come from another point to defend one that’s being assaulted, its always uncharted territory when your rolling into a place your team doesn’t control
There is one important thing to consider. The consequences. If it’s only AT guys who can kill tanks, then the current balance will be gone. Right now if you’re good at tanks you’re happy, if you’re good at tank killing, you are happy. (Me at least. )
So please first recommend implementing better alternatives than explosives, and for fixing grey zone tank camping, THEN suggest changing the explosives.
I’m absolutely fine if assaulters, AT gunners and engineers are the only ones that can be equipped with explosives, or if they add a skill tree and academy can teach any soldier how to use them, with AT gunners automatically having this skill. (Plus buffing grenades and somewhat limiting explosive throwing range.) But limiting it to a single class breaks the balance in a wrong way.
If you wish to remove explosives from everyone and/or add 3 tanks, I wish
- tanks to be deployed 500 meter further away,
- crew be unable to teleport out from the tank but have to crawl out one by one,
- not be able to fix anything else but tracks during battle,
- infantry be able to drag some clothes over the optics and everything so you’re vision is blocked if I am able to jump on your tank.
Should I continue or can we stop some time in the near future with this explosive thread spamming please?
wellp id be willing to make some concessions to which squads can equip them since it is noted that engineers did also use the charges im talking about, but im not so sure about assaulters because you can just unlock the AT Gunner for those squads if you want to use the Comp C-3 charge
And what about giving the packs a tiny less power ( effective against light vehicles, and for heavier ones just be able to destroy them when placed underneath and in the other cases just break the modules, right now the pack has the same effect both on a Puma and on a Jumbo). Could be a solution?
i figure something like this would be the easiest way to implement different explosion pack effects on different hull thickness anything above 50 armour would take 3 explosion packs to destroy anything below 25 armour would take 1 explosion pack to destroy and anything inbetween 50-25 takes 2 explosion packs…
Ok, correcting myself,
So please first recommend
- implementing better alternatives than explosives,
- fix grey zone tank camping,
- make bots obey orders especially if you tell the single AT gunner in your squad to stay in cover not to rush out for a “welcome arty” party
THEN suggest changing the explosives.
Though I’m unsure whether the bots still rush out from the red zone, their survivability rate is still below expectations.
yea the bots are kinda dumb when arti is fired on your location… its like they are all inside a bunker i tell them to defend the bunker and they all run outside to try to escape the arti radius and to have their lack of brains spread all over the battlefield
yea because it doesn’t make sense that a 1.2 kg charge of low energy explosive can turn an heavily armoured vehicle into a smoldering ash pit when you can throw multiple High Explosive/Armour Piercing tank shells at that same take without damaging it at all… like you realize a HE 75mm M3 shell contains 6.76 kg of high explosive that’s like more then 5x the charge of these explosion packs and you can throw upwards of 40 HE shells at light tanks before they blow up…
1kg of TNT has more explosives than a 7kg round. Only 10% of the round is actually explosives.
If a High explosive damages a tank from the same angle as the TNT, the TNT will do more damage.
Remember, TNT is placed on top of the tank, on its tracks, or underneath. Those places are very weak
the “DYNAMITE” Explosion Pack contains absolutely 0 TNT thats a whole other substance… the Dynamite being used in game right now is most likely something called ANFO… cause its relatively stable unlike its nitroglycerine brother…
C-3 on the other hand does contain TNT
it also contains RDX and other things but yea
Just stick explosive packs on your infantry, cook it and toss it in a room. It’ll clear it in a MUCH wider radius than a grenade will.
A fragmentation grenade is designed to send shrapnel around, TNT is just an explosive that expands around the volume of space around it.
Explosives will, by design, have more effect on enclosed spaces where the volume to cross is more limited, while frag grenades should have a stronger effect on open spaces where theres much space for the shrapnel to fly through