I already follow those things, in fact I was talking as an infantryman player who sees that in his opinion killing tanks is too easy.
Yes, as a tank Hunter(my favorite part of this game), itâs really hard to kill a tank that moving with the main infantry group, most of them I killed are those sitting behind alone, charge into enemy groups, or stay beside buildings.
1 Like
As I said, I donât want to make explosion packs useless, just more realistic, used for disable tank modules and at best destroy wheeled vehicles such as pumas. I think itâs enough to make it alive.
Itâs like the 3rd time I explain itâŚ
because they are easy to destroy the tanks are blind and defenseless without the infantry and this is true both in the real world and in enlisted do you want to play well? think what a soldier would do at that moment
Here 7 tanks fucked with bomber
(2 months old image)
(Fresh one)
I agree with xXserialkillerXxâs comment.
Only my opinion but I think the basic issue here is that currently infantry vs. tank feels good and balanced, if youâre a skilled tank player youâll be among the top 3, if youâre a skilled infantry player youâll have no problem to kill a tank thatâs stupid enough to rush faster than the supporting infantry.
Changing that without first changing the means to deal with the new situation would be a bad move.
The bomber class anti tank rifle e.g. in Moscow is not too powerful against stronger tanks, takes several shots to make a tank blow up. Often the explosives donât kill a tank in other campaigns, I used up to 4 explosives per tank if the driver was good enough and did not stop in a single position.
With the detpack you must get nearby, needs good aiming, also you need to cook the grenade⌠These are not too hard to learn but if there is enemy infantry around, it does not work out so well.
So suggest toâŚ
- make it possible to move and reload AT turrets (first one is about to happen I guess)
- add sticky (magnetic) bombs
- etc
and then propose a nerf to TNT.
I guess Iâd be all right with changes like
- tank track more vulnerable, tank itself less,
- infantry much more vulnerable to grenades than to detpack
- limit TNT to engineers and bomber class
but the current gameplay is just perfect for my taste, so no need to change, rather let devs work on AI and everything they proposed.
3 Likes
Ok thanks for your answer I pretty much agree with you.
I summarize what I said, maybe I wasnât clear enough.
- nerfing explosion pack doesnât mean making them big frag grenades, it means making them able to disable tank modules such as tracks,engine gun without destroying so eaily the eavier ones
- nerfing explosion packs, since EVERY soldier can carry it, would give more purpose to other tanks, bomber class and AT guns built by engineers
- Because of this nerf, give more power to bombers, maybe as @118225699 said with special grenades such as magnetic ones etc.
I donât know how to explain it better.
Thatâs all boys, just my opinion
Iâm not sure how those changes would work out in practice, but for the most part it seem ok.
I donât agree with nerfing explosive pack against infantry, because it would perhaps make sense in context of balance (maybe), but not in case of realism. It has much more explosive payload than a granade, so I donât see why it should be artificially handicaped.
In my experience ganades are much better than explosive packs, because the range of the second is just to short and it is not often you are in the perfect range to use them. But in some cases, like inside buildings the extra power of explosive can be a better match.
Limiting explosives to just two classes is also going overboard. Unless you plan on giving magnetic charges, or other AT weapons to regular infantry. But I would still like to keep my explosives.
Nonsense - perhaps you are confused by the PIAT using a spigot launching system so you think it is a spigot mortar?
It is not a mortar - it is used exactly the same wqay as a bazooka.
It COULD be used as a mortar, because it has no backblast and so you could elevate it a long way and not worry about the back blast reflecting off the ground - something the Bazooka could not be used as, but it is not a mortar.
The Canadians did mount several on a Universal Carrier as an experiment - but do not confuse this with normalk use:
Alright, maybe I got my infos about the piat a little bit messed, thanks for the link
1 Like
Older forum posts argued that a TNT charge without shrapnel or iron body fragments is less effective against infantry than something designed specifically against infantry. I guess @Josephs_Piano and others are much better at arguing for or against it than me, I have all the google but no actual knowledge.
I also wish to keep them. 
But I can accept changes going for realism - if you wish explosives, you either bring an engineer or a bomber along in your squad, or anything alike, I doubt every random soldier e.g. a sniper had TNT in his backpack.
Also it could be a soldier skill learned in academy how to use TNT (now that the academy loses its old functionality) and without it you canât equip.
âŚand the OP wanted a nerf against tanks, not infantry, sorry for adding that to this thread.
Maybe here I am a little bit more clear for the one answering before @118225699 @846391 @gastanofrizzi @ErikaKalkbrenner @Josephs_Piano
nah the explosion pack are fine
1 Like
Even with 5 times the explosive mass?
Bundle granades then. The dual purpose of explosive is cool, but bundle granades could be a partial solution if it was nerfed against inf.
I both might agree and dissagree.
I didnât think about the game in the sense of who could and should have what, and that the distinctions are a mix of what might be realistic, but mostly gameplay based class system.
Perhaps you are right that regualr soldiers should not have explosives, but I donât know how those things were actually handled.
From balancing stand point, considering that you can only have 3 squads in battle by default it would mean removing most of the AT potential of the team. Something I already mentioned. Unless you replace it with something else the balance will swing majorly in armors favor.
If that is realistic, than good, but something needs to be done to mitigate this change. Otherwise there will be a problem and Iâm sure the forum will be flooded with calls to nerf tanks.
A most trustworthy source:
âThe kill radius of your typical fragmentation grenade is 5 meters, the casualty radius is 15 meters, but shrapnel can travel as far as 230 meters.â
I guess that quite matches a bigger pack of TNT, 1-10kg has an estimated lethal radius of 5m according to
https://www.sccm.org/getattachment/cc197ca2-fe84-47c0-b3ef-7d00abd6271b/Conventional-Explosions-and-Blast-Injuries
so youâre probably right, except for the shrapnel travel distance. (Please consider the fact Iâm working from some stupidly oversimplified sources without prior knowledge, not taking into consideration e.g. whether itâs in the open or inside building etc.)
A TNT landed on top of a tank probably produces next to no shrapnel lethal to infantry, a TNT below a tank on gravel terrain (or how those small rocks are called) is quite a different story.
Agree.
How about donât drive into crowds of infantry
7 Likes
8 Likes
Or we could instead grant him his wish and instead get the option to open capulas shoot through gun ports and insert grenades into the engine compartment via the exhaust XD
1 Like
wouldnât it be worse like that? 
Yes thatâs my point, the hombre needs more realism so letâs give it to him
1 Like
Itâs pretty easy to avoid getting exploded just stay with the infantry and donât expose your flanks, check your sides every so often if youâre supporting a charge and donât break through enemy lines without infantry
6 Likes