Sticky bombs to replace Explosive Packs

Suggestions
1

Change Explosive packs. Essentially replace them with “sticky bombs”.

  • Very short throwing distance (about 1/3 of what it is now)

  • Make the armor penetration much less. (This means you will be much less likely to hit ammo reserves and such and insta-kill tanks. However, it will make disabling them much more possible when stuck to the right locations. The Barrel and tracks being the most vulnerable points.)

  • Make the fragmentation range basically non-existent, making it nearly worthless against infantry. (It would still be strong against a fortification it was slapped on.)

By making this change, it removes the likelihood of tanks being easily killed by basic infantry in general. Which incentivizes them to push up and support infantry rather than sitting in back of the map.

It still allows infantry a chance to DISABLE tanks, which in turn could force out the crew, enabling a tank kill, but it would be more time-consuming and bring back balance to AT soldiers.

5 Likes
2

What about AT impact nades as well, like the Soviet what’s-it-called?

1 Like
3

I don’t agree with this. If this were to happen it would still have tanks sitting in the greyzone with now less options to completely stop them via no Explosive Packs. If fact I think it would encourage it even more now that players would know that if they sit in the greyzone with their tank it’s just merely 1 less issue to deal with.

10 Likes
4

Man, all I want is them old explosive packs back, they got nerfed into being pretty bad and unreliable in general.

9 Likes
5

I would like to keep explosive packs and have different models for different countries

Examples

Germany:
M24 grenade bundle
image

Soviet union:
RGD-33 grenade bundle
image

USA:
TNT
image

Japan:
Type 3 grenade
image

11 Likes
6

Try to stay on topic please. If you wish to propose an idea for other explosive packs, please do so on a seperate thread.

7

I’d say one variation per side. If the Soviet’s for example didn’t have sticky bombs, but had an impact AT grenade instead, they should get that option. (I haven’t closely studied historical accuracy, I’m more interested in the possibilities to increase game balance.

8

rpg 43 ?

9

At the end reskin. If Germans still can kick tin butt, people will still stay at the camping thing.

10

  1. One of the biggest reasons that players sit so far back in the first place is because just how much the explosive pack is used, because its simply *overpowered. If the threat of the explosive pack was significantly removed, you would see many more people pushing forward with tanks.

  2. If they are sitting so far back in the greyzone, an explosive pack isn’t your best option anyways!
    AT launchers and rifles, Planes, Tanks, AT field guns, etc! Make use of them!
    If you choose not to use them as you would rather have more of an infantry focused troop type, congratulations, this is where the balance issue lies.

*Overpowered

  • They are overpowered in the fact that they have the power to:
  • kill tanks
  • has low- medium throwing range
  • can also kill large numbers of infantry in a room (blast radius is massively larger than that of an AT launcher)
  • can carry up to 3 per person
  • can be used by ANY troop type
  • can bypass issues of finding an angle by simply being lobbed on top of tanks

In comparison to:
Grenades
Frags-

  • Only kills infantry
  • has low- medium throwing range
  • can also kill large numbers of infantry in a room
  • can carry up to 3 per person
  • can be used by ANY troop type

Molotovs- (same as frags except leaves fire and such, the downside being it doesn’t instantly kill, rather over time)
Impacts- (same as frags except much smaller radius, but impact effect)

Even White Phosphorus- (Essentially like a more concentrated molotov)

Vehicles
Tanks-

  • Requires player to spawn in a tank
  • Can counter a tank
  • Becomes a big target himself

Planes-

  • Either requires good observation skills of the pilot, or someone to mark for them
  • Requires a bare minimum of a pair of bombs or rockets (usually a lot more), which considering is equivalent many more explosive packs, is quite a big difference
  • Requires you to use a plane quad

AT Field Gun

  • Stationary
  • Has give or take the same penetration power of a tank
  • Easy target to be picked off

AT Launchers/ Rifles

  • Both require you to take an AT soldier
  • Both require finding proper angles of penetration to get through the armor
  • Both are quite cumbersome
  • AT launchers do very little damage to troops, even for a direct hit
  • AT Rifles don’t have splash damage

Mines
AT Mine-

  • Must be manually PLACED at potential impact point
  • Must be placed in advance or used by surprise (unlikely to get it when the tank knows you are there)
  • Requires the tank to drive over it
  • Can only carry one per soldier

TNT-

  • Must be manually PLACED at the potential impact point
  • Can be used either as an advanced trap, or climb onto a tank in order to utilize it
  • Can only carry one per soldier

My entire point is that Explosive packs are significantly stronger than ANYTHING else than anything they are categorized with in a strategic sense.

I don’t think the other things are “underpowered” as they all have positives and negatives. The explosive pack needs to be brought back in line with the other ones, which is what my post is suggesting.

1 Like
11

dude, pretty much the exact topic. what’s the matter with you lol?

1 Like
12

Leave the explosive packs alone I say. Like others have said, they have been nerfed enough as it is. There is nothing worse than having tanks on the loose that can’t be killed :astonished: . Not only that, I like chasing down tanks, it’s part of the fun of the game :grinning:

13

how about no.

1 Like
14

he is on crusade to remove explosive packs or nerf them to the ground. and crusade to enable defenders to make invincible forts.

1 Like
15

So what would they have as counterparts to Impact and WP grenades?

16

Explosive pack need a buff but not at the level they were.Sticky bombs could be added to the arsenal of weapon against tank and not a replacement.
Reducing the area of action of infantry by removing explosion pack and buffing the armor of tanks is no bueno. Tanks are very powerful plus they have the advantage of grey area.
All of this would tilt the balance towards tanks.

17

Actually read the suggestion. Rather than just looking at “Nerf to explosive packs” read what else was said.

This is to

It would still be an ideal tool to stop enemy tanks. However, when it comes to destroying tanks, it means that infantry would either have to:

  • wait for tankers to try to repair
  • start an engine fire
  • use TNT
  • (if they have an AT soldier), use a launcher against the immobile tank

One of the key issues that I have with explosive packs however is that they are AT, but also able to take out infantry like a normal grenade. This means that they are taken significantly more often than almost any other grenade. Balance needs to be brought to this situation, and my suggestion takes care of several issues at once.

Let me ask you this:

  • How many of your troops do you carry explosive packs on?
  • How many of your troops do you carry TNT on?
  • How many of your troops do you carry an AT weapon on?

It does tilt the balance towards tanks a bit, but primarily at mid- range. If they are camping the greyzone, which I’ve made suggestions to fix, they are usually better taken out by other means than explosive packs anyways.

The explosive packs simply make it TOO EASY to kill tanks, with non-AT troops, at mid to short range. This means tanks are far less likely to push forward to assist their teams in the first place, leading to the issue where people are just sitting in the greyzone camping.

Additionally, haven’t you ever thought it strange that non-tankers are able to carry repair toolkits? Considering the chances to use them CURRENTLY are basically non-existent as everything that CAN DAMAGE tanks, just outright kill them in 99.9% of situations.

If it were changed to sticky bombs with the disabling effect, it would encourage more teamwork to keep tanks moving, as there would actually be the opportunity now, as they are pushing up to assist infantry and have less fear of being outright killed by almost EVERY SINGLE enemy soldier.

@Shiivex , @EdVanSchleck , @Bigote0070 , You guys are usually pretty reasonable in discussions. What are your thoughts on this?

1 Like
18

Nonexistent, they are pretty much that now. Det packs are as good as useless against troops. They used to be good but not now :woozy_face: . GuardianReaper I see what you mean by your idea, but the only way I can see it working is, if you had at least a 10 vs 10, all ten real players per side, not half of them bots, so that you can spare a couple of guys to be able to disable tanks as you are proposing. In most games it’s hard enough to get players to put down rally’s and ammo, let alone expecting them to disable tanks and wait for them to jump out and then shoot them.

19

I get your point. If they’ll be overwritten, I don’t know. But I’ll pass your idea.

20

Well, i like a replace, but a more stronger replace

Like, If somebody was played ro2, ro2 have 3kg explosive pack, was a mega bomb for tanks

1 Like