Why gray zone tanks suck Vol 1

Mess Room
100

I don’t disagree, on the whole - I mean, I’ve done this myself. But it’s at GREAT risk to myself (since you never know when you’re just going to kick over dead, you don’t have armor, you’re deep in enemy territory, and at anytime, even if the tank is alone, they can turn and shoot you, whereas, all I have is secrecy, luck, and either an AT weapon or an explosive…) Not gonna lie, taking out a gray zone tank while the timer is running out and landing the explosive just right… it was a pretty sweet kill. :smiley:

First, let me try to explain something here, since those who speak English as a second language obviously aren’t understanding the point at all.

The situation you describe above is realistic, just as the one above that and I’ve done both. (Again, as I’ve mentioned in this thread, the gray zone camping doesn’t really bother me that much. It’s the hypocrisy about it that does.)

And here’s part of that hypocrisy: It’s fine for a tank, with armor, machine guns, cannon, and protected crew - to camp in an area that provides them excellent protection (gray zone, meaning no CQC, meaning it very much narrows down what can take it out, that’s why people do it).

Vs. the counter to it which is either a tank, AT weapon or soldiers of various types generally having to leave their gray zone to get close enough to get in range for their weapons to be effective - some of which have to risk even further by going into the enemy gray zone and seeing how long it takes for the luck to run out.

The point here: why does the tank get to be a special snowflake and get the benefit of gray zone protection but the counter to it doesn’t? Doesn’t that illustrate the unfairness of the situation?

Sure, sure. The answer could be shorted to “get gud” - but the point I’m trying to make - the counter to the tank using the gray zone - takes a LOT more work than the tank who benefits from it. How is this fair? How is this balanced?

Why do the strongest units get the benefit of sitting in the gray zone?

As the saying goes: two things can be true at the same time: Tanks get extra protection by being in the gray zone, whilst there are still SOME ways of taking them out. It doesn’t make the situation fair. Where do other units (outside of say, AA guns and AT cannon) get any benefit from hanging in the gray zone?

There’s no remotely comparable situation in the game. Here’s a thought:

Ignoring for a moment any other reason for having the gray zone (like protecting rally points, etc) Hypothetically: Why not just take out the gray zone completely? The tanks would still benefit from being at great range, right?

Wouldn’t all you “gray zone campers” be okay with that solution?

101

As a player who is good at and often uses ground troops against tanks
I can say very responsibly
Almost all gray zone massacres are the victims’ fault
Because they don’t want to prepare anything that can counterattack or interfere with these tanks.
And don’t want to take a detour away from what’s killing them

1
The player has 3 infantry squads and 1 vehicle squad
They can make choices for (selfish desires) or (for practical needs)
In the end, they can only be responsible for (their own choices)

2
Any vehicle has this issue
If they did a good enough job then I wouldn’t have a problem with it
So I think a better approach would be to use performance reviews to make sure bad players don’t stay on vehicles for too long

3
This is a slander without any actual proof
Because whether camping or not
More than 70% of tank drivers have the same lack of skills
They cannot effectively use their shells, performance, and terrain to protect their teammates and themselves.

4
They can provide long-range suppressive fire and smoke cover (if they wish)
Maybe the problem is that the skills of those infantry are too poor to break even strongholds with only a few enemies or that have been breached.

5
Except for casual players who have an obvious negative impact on the environment
I don’t think there are many players who don’t care about scores

6
I don’t know how the victim’s eyesight and thinking logic are.
but
Even if I’m on the ground
I can also make judgments based on the location of the bombardment, the sound of the gunfire, and the light spots, and then find them.

The infantry in this game has at least 4 methods of efficient destruction and 3 methods of effective interference with tanks entering the war zone.
Unless tanks meet casual players
Otherwise, under normal conditions
Once close to the battle zone those (serious players) will manage to destroy every tank they can see within 1 minute and 30 seconds
Going deeper into the gray zone may allow the tank to survive for an extra minute.
This is why most tanks are reluctant to enter combat zones

Obviously players can use smoke, terrain, and even dig bunkers to protect themselves
Or use engineering troops and anti-tank troops to fight tanks (advanced environments in the United States and Japan will be discussed separately)
but
At least among all the victims I’ve seen
No one would do the above behavior

just like you said
If they can’t even make the most basic choices and efforts for their own survival,
Is there any reason to require official protection for them?

102

There are 4 ways to combat gray areas
If the player is good enough, he can launch an anti-tank rocket launcher in a parabola

103

this is war
no matter what you are
No matter where you are
Death can happen at any time

Then why don’t you say that because there is a possibility of death when walking on the road, both sides should be protected by the system before they attack each other?

I read most of your arguments.
I feel like you’re just protesting that as an infantryman, you can’t easily destroy those tanks by just standing still and pressing the left button?

104

yes it is cause

  1. tanks were not designed for CQC. if you check history you will see that they were easy targets for enemy infantry if they were allowed to go solo into CQC without heavy infantry support. this is same as in the game
  2. even when they were used in e.g. urban combat, it was preceded by infantry clearing enemies in vicinity that could ambush tanks before moving it in position where it could perform its duties( e.g. destroying fortified enemy position)

if you have problem with tanks actually doing their intended role, then maybe combined arms game is not for you.

blatantly false. most maps have direct line of sight from gray zone to gray zone. it would be way faster to mentioned specific caps on maps where you cant have direct line of sight from one gray zone to another.
also irrelevant. even if they have to leave their gray zone, they have tools to kill enemy tank.

only counter that cant get benefit of gray zone protection is det pack (well AT mines and tnt). you can build AT gun in gray zone, your tank can be in gray zone, you can take plane (which ignores gray zone), you can shoot rocket launcher from gray zone… but it is easier to say it cant be done than actually doing it.

cause of this

105

You apparently did not.

First off, I very much enjoy playing in tanks. If I were going on about this for my own self-interest, I’d probably be arguing the other side of this discussion. The reason I don’t is I care about game balance.

Second, here are examples of what I AM actually interested in with this discussion, if you were able to follow along.

And in the original post:

My post and gray zone tanking has absolutely nothing to do with me in the game. It’s about what some folks on the forum say about what is obviously an unfair play style. At least some are honest and say that, due to explosives being overpowered, it justifies playing in the gray zone.

That’s debatable, depending the BR level for sure, and perhaps other factors, but at least it’s recognizing that they’re using an odd situation in the game (protecting the strongest units in the game) from something they think is unfair (explosives killing tanks easily).

Look, this is not some noob issue or whatever you long-term players think it is, this wouldn’t be a controversial topic going back years, LONG before I ever came along. Here’s a google example:

grayzone1

grayzone2
grayzone2911×1167 106 KB

grayzone3
grayzone3731×1067 305 KB

I haven’t read every single Dev post about this subject, but it would seem to me that one of their upcoming changes is to give “New engineer-built AT guns for high BR” that would be addressing this very thing.

106

when they are noob everyone makes this topic… ffs even i made one. inability to deal with gray zone mostly affects f2p players, so best solution i made there is second vehicle slot for f2p players (gray zone tanks arent really a problem for premium players)

exactly. why do you think people made suggestions to improve AT weapons?

also people have made suggestions to improve US (super bazooka or giving them panzerfaust like they did with soviets) and japanese AT rocket launchers.

107

I already pointed this out.

But, since you didn’t read it the first time, here ya go (from the Tank entry on Wikipedia)

A tank is an armoured fighting vehicle intended as a primary offensive weapon in front-line ground combat.

Later, they describe how it was used in WWII:

During the Invasion of Poland, tanks performed in a more traditional role in close cooperation with infantry units, but in the Battle of France deep independent armoured penetrations were executed by the Germans, a technique later called blitzkrieg

Tanks going in front of Infantry (by way of Blitzkrieg, or in North Africa) or, working directly with infantry (as opposed to staying behind the infantry with an invisible magic shield to boot). Yes, I know, historically, tanks were occasionally used for bombardment and the like, but given the proliferation of artillery and mortars, why bother wasting your tanks on that?

Now, I will grant you that in an urban setting, it’s dangerous for a tank due to how easy is it for infantry to hide and drop explosives.

One final note: The wikipedia entry for “combined arms” actually does mention urban areas.

Combined arms is an approach to warfare that seeks to integrate different combat arms of a military to achieve mutually complementary effects—for example, using infantry and armour in an urban environment in which each supports the other.

So, I believe it is you, sir, who does not know the “intended role” of armor.

But, that’s really getting into tactics and my point has always been how hypocritical it is to defend tanks being in the gray zone which is an area that prevents a lot of attacks.

So many players talking about immersion but they can’t just be honest and say they stay in the gray zone b/c explosives are overpowered or that infantry aren’t supporting them and they get creamed. Instead, some try to justify it that - there are other attacks that can hit a tank in the gray area, or that it’s the “designed” way tanks were used, so any differing opinion on it being an exploit is “lazy or lack skills”.

In the real world, If infantry needed long range artillery, they would get long range artillery. It’s still being used to this day in modern conflicts. And today, in conflicts, tanks unsupported by infantry are getting creamed.

Unfortunately, there are no “gray zones” in real life to protect the tanks, so they are forced to either work with their infantry or stay out of the fight completely.

108

oh really? maybe watch how tanks were actually used instead of taking wiki quotes out of context.

109

please tell me how many tanks in ww2 were destroyed with satchel charges from point blank range while they were in action(not counting abandoned tanks)? and how many of them were destroyed by AT guns, enemy tanks, rocket launchers, artillery or CAS from range?

110

And how does this tactic even apply to enlisted?
The point of the so called “Blitzkrieg” tactic was breaking through the enemy lines and disrupting the enemy command structure and cuting off supply and finaly encircle the enemy BEFORE he can mount a defence.

But in enlisted both sides are in a meeting engagement.
Nobody can win by bypassing the enemy lines and both sides operate at full stregth.
The big upside of “Blitzkrieg” was avoiding equal engagements which would deplete your forces dramaticly like you see in enlisted.

The chaos that was caused by rommel bypassing the marginot line (under horrendous casualties) paralized the defenders and allowed the rest of the army to attack a confused enemy from the rear where defences where light, which in turn demoralised them even futher.

Saying tank at the front is always a great idea is a stupid takeaway from this operation as in this case speed was impotant for futher operations to succeed. But in enlisted speed is worthless and engagement are even. The only thing that matters in enlisted is tickets so a conservative approach is more appropriate.
There is no benefit to quickly overrunning an enemy in enlisted as a quick defeat will not translate into the next battle in form of decreased tickets or rushed logistics/planning undermining what you can face as high command was to busy figureing out what happend instead of sending the tank brigade and ammo trucks did not arrive in time.

111

1
How many players have you seen willing to actively support tanks?
Not many people would voluntarily waste time protecting something that cannot gain any benefit.
Without what you call effective infantry protection
There really isn’t much reason for tanks to enter a war zone

2
Even with supporting infantry
But as long as the penetration and follow-up effects of anti-tank weapons are high enough,
Players can effectively destroy or severely damage tanks 100 meters away with just a few seconds of aiming and judgment.
Or those infantrymen will just become a sweet spot for aircraft and enemy tanks.

3
I don’t want to waste time repeating the importance of terrain diversity, equipment suitability, and player coordination.

If you just treat some kind of unilateral terrain defect or other things as an oversight or loophole
Then your point of view may be somewhat wrong
The key is how to utilize limited terrain and equipment and cooperate with other players.
(This is because most players today do not have the most basic team game ethics.
Maybe punishing these lazy and selfish players will help solve the so-called)

4
Of course, individual anti-tank equipment is not as simple as fortifications and vehicles.
But their flexibility is much higher than the latter
You can’t carry a 75MM long-barreled gun alone and run deep into the enemy’s depths, right?

5
Defects in the film that are part of a minority model
In the end, the tank was still destroyed by the infantry’s explosive pack.

6
As the above article said
On the premise that countermeasures are known and clearly useful
If players can’t even protect themselves
Then it’s the player’s problem
Moreover
This is a (team) PVP game
If you don’t have anyone on your team willing to fight this stuff
It just means you all suck.

7
It’s just begging
You just twisted the problem of insufficient skills and motivation into insufficient squad numbers.

As mentioned in the above article
3+1 is enough for free players to make the most basic choices
They should be responsible for their own choices
Instead of being greedy and asking for more

8
this is a process
They have to learn to make choices and protect themselves
I was massacred for months as a rookie in Normandy by King Tiger or D-Day or whatever effectively massacred me.

Until I started thinking about how to fight them
I started to prioritize tactical requirements when arranging my team (all had anti-tank soldiers)
A communication team dedicated to releasing smoke (including snipers, but only used to snipe firepower points)
Engineering Group (Anti-Vehicle)
flamethrower or assault group
P51D (anti-vehicle before getting P47)
From then on my fighting started going smoothly and I started getting high rankings

Later I started thinking about why I lost.
At first I blamed the problem on the enemy’s equipment advantage.
but
When I watched the so-called casual players and passive players in every game simply move forward and then die without doing anything that would contribute to victory or even hinder friendly forces.
I fully understand the biggest reason for failure
It’s never the enemy’s equipment advantage or team formation
It’s the laziness and selfishness of friendly forces or oneself

9
I agree better anti-tank equipment and anti-tank guns

10
This is a game, not reality
So don’t apply all theories and results to the game
And we need gray areas
In this way, the side with more casual players will not be forced to fight at the respawn point.

Individual anti-tank equipment is always one of the biggest factors that prevent tanks from approaching the station area.

112

I was responding to robihr who was bringing up historical precedent. I was correcting him using references. He then said I was taking them out of context. Given that anyone could just look up said references, it’s a rather silly retort.

I never implied nor said that tanks should lead the way in Enlisted.

113

All I can say to this is: “BWAHAHAHA.”

I quote references (that anyone can look up and verify) and the best you have is that I’m taking them out of context. WOW.

So, go ahead and quote references that back up your statement and contradict my quotes. You are the one who brought up historical precedence.

Fact is, the gray zone is an immersive breaking, in game exploit that some tank players use to protect themselves.

Period. End of story. There is no debate in that fact. The debate surrounds why people use it and ways to defeat said tank in spite of said exploit.

PS. I’m not going to watch a 12 minute video. If you have some point in the video where it says that tanks were typically used as artillery in the back, by all means, point it out. Since THAT is what you’re trying to justify.

114

Yes it is. Every once in a while, Forum gets attacked by idiots who demand some punishment for players using tanks.

One guy (who also had other dumb ideas like “only engineers should be able to dismantle barbed wire”) demanded that “explosive packs should be nerfed, so tanks will have more courage to rush objective”.

And indeed Gaijin did this:

The effect was that most tanks were still sitting in grey-zone, while breakthrough tanks (T-34 / Jumbo) were even more powerful.

Other dumb idea was to reduce engine’s power:

So that tanks could not climb up the hills.

This had completely ruined that map, because in turn - Allies also could not use tanks to attack next objectives.

(double edged sword)

1 Like
115

yes when you mention this

you insert explanation about those quotes out of context. what does tanks going in front of infantry mean when capturing objective? what does tanks cooperate with infantry mean when capturing objective? that is why i put video there explaining panzer tactics cause you mentioned blitzkrieg and what those tactics actually mean when employed in taking objective.

you just implied that tanks sitting in back shooting at objective and removing enemies from it and preventing reinforcement is bad and that tank is useless to the team that way and then continued with them being invulnerable and that you need to force them to leave the zone. yeah you never said that they shouldnt be in the front leading, just that they should be forbidden from being in back and the middle. btw gray zone starts ~40-50m from cap, so you are basically saying that tanks should be in that range.

you are just going to waste half hour searching wiki for quotes that can explain reasons on why you are “correct” and not actually take couple of minutes to see how enlisted gameplay is actually correct.

just like teleporting on RP or APC is immersion breaking, or magically repairing major damage to tank in few seconds or magically rearming plane in middle of air, or soldiers magically healing themselves when they are wounded, or engineers magically conjuring AT gun with hammer, or battling with/against prototype weapons and oh wait, this is my favorite… using explosive packs on mid or late war tanks.

here is excerpt on satchel charge against KV-2 ( - from Raus’ memoirs Pages 81, 82 in Small Unit Actions During the German Campaign in Russia (German Report Series))

I was detailed as an observer for the detachment that was sent
to blow up the Russian tank. After all preparations had been made,
the company commander and I attached a charge of about double
the normal size to the tank track, and I returned to the ditch which
was my observation post. The ditch was deep enough to offer
protection against splinters, and I waited there to observe the
effect of the explosion. The tank, however, covered the area with
sporadic machinegun fire following the explosion. After about an hour,
when everything had quieted down, I crept to the tank and examined the
place where I had attached the charge. Hardly half of the track was
destroyed, and I could find no other damage to the tank. I returned to
the assembly point only to find that the detachment had departed.
While looking for my boots I found that another demolition charge
had been left behind. I took it, returned to the tank, climbed onto it,
and fastened the charge to the gun barrel in the hope of destroying
at least that part of the tank, the charge not being large enough to
do any greater damage. I crept under the tank and detonated the charge.
The tank immediately covered the edge of the forest with machinegun
fire which did not cease until dawn, when I was finally able to crawl
out from under the tank. When I inspected the effect of the demolition, I
saw, to my regret, that the charge I had used was too weak. The gun was
only slightly damaged. Upon returning to the assembly point, I found a pair
of boots, which I tried to put on, but they were too small. Someone had
apparently taken my boots by mistake. That is why I returned
barefoot and late to my company.

116

Nope. If you’re going to comment on a post, at least have the due diligence to read the thread. B/c otherwise, you miss conversation that proves you wrong.

I don’t want any punishment for players using tanks. Never said that. Go ahead, find the quote.

For one thing, I use tanks - a fair bit, perhaps has much as 25-35% of my play, depending on the match and what would best help the team win.

As for bouncing explosive packs - not sure what your point is there. There’s no argument for that in any world: it’s not immersive, historical, helpful, or even good gameplay. Not sure how anyone asked for DF to create bouncing explosive packs and obviously, I have NO idea how that relates to anything I’ve said.

As for reducing the tank’s power to go up hills - that’s exactly the OPPOSITE of what I’d be arguing for, which is for tanks to get out of the gray zone if it’s being done for the purpose of preventing others from getting close enough to attack in other ways.

The one thing I did say regarding explosive packs is someone earlier in this thread mentioned the idea of reducing the penetration of explosive packs and that may be something worth thinking about to give tanks some longevity when not in the gray zone.

117

Emphasis mine above. Bingo. I never said they should be in the front. Technically, I did not say that they should be “forbidden” in the back or in the middle.

I have repeatedly said in this thread that my contention is about people who knowingly occupy their tanks in the gray zone. I’ve even said I’ve likely done it myself as it’s not like there’s a notification in game that you’re actually in the gray zone.

The gray zone varies and sure, there are times when it’s 50M from the strategic point. And, yes, describing exactly where the gray zone is is ambiguous since it constantly changes every map and even the same maps change depending on who’s defending, who’s attacking, what style are the objectives and all the rest.

I mentioned the Blitzkrieg bit since it was both in the wiki article and illustrates EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of your “historical” argument that tanks sit in the back all the time. NO THEY DO NOT. They almost never did. There were some historical battles where it happened, but that wasn’t the typical nor intended use. YOU were the one who brought up the historical uses so I was simply proving you wrong, which I did and you can’t simply admit it.

The wiki look up took perhaps two minutes to search, read, and quote, not 30 minutes.

Yep, all those are immersive breaking as well. No denying it. And, I also agree that this is a game and agree we accept some immersive breaking compromises to have a more enjoyable game. I even enjoyed your story about the satchel charge.

I have already stated that, perhaps the fix to this gray zone thing (which is a necessary evil to protect rally points and to prevent spawn camping which happens in basically every game if it isn’t stopped) - is to lessen the strength of the satchel charge so that the tanks can live a bit longer when they’re used a bit more closer to the historical precedent.

Additionally, the Devs are addressing some of the imbalance issues - on the Roadmap under "VEHICLE and SOLDIER BALANCE, they are adding “new engineer-built AT guns for high BR”. Also, a new soldier class - who knows what that is. Be funny though, if it were a new soldier that could go into the gray area, no?

118
119

Developer are aware and thinking to change to the grey zone as stated in the new road map, as well is positive you people are giving suggestions on this, mix them between bar arguing and rant isn’t going make those suggestions visible to the staff, therefore for the next time I want remember you to keep the discussions polite between eachother and focused on the topic