Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-08 at 22:27. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.
1. Nice armoured cabin for the driver, so no getting sniped because your soldier is unable to move or take cover (looking at you torpedo boat).
2. Solid armament. 2 protected MGs with the amazing boat/ zeppelin MG damage model. They can defend the vehicle and support the infantry they transport without making the vehicle too powerful (it is a support vehicle after all). But it seems they must have fired the normal dev who for the last 3 games at least has insisted on weak weapons and exposed positions on all transports.
3. Decent enough armour not to be immediately one or two shotted by infantry.
4. If gunners or crew come under fire from unprotected directions they can unmount from their position and take cover inside the vehicle without the physics sperging out and throwing them out of the vehicle into the water.
Why can't all support vehicles in Battlefield games be this well designed?
1. Nice armoured cabin for the driver, so no getting sniped because your soldier is unable to move or take cover (looking at you torpedo boat).
2. Solid armament. 2 protected MGs with the amazing boat/ zeppelin MG damage model. They can defend the vehicle and support the infantry they transport without making the vehicle too powerful (it is a support vehicle after all). But it seems they must have fired the normal dev who for the last 3 games at least has insisted on weak weapons and exposed positions on all transports.
3. Decent enough armour not to be immediately one or two shotted by infantry.
4. If gunners or crew come under fire from unprotected directions they can unmount from their position and take cover inside the vehicle without the physics sperging out and throwing them out of the vehicle into the water.
Why can't all support vehicles in Battlefield games be this well designed?
The armored car has protected seating for all it's gunners. The issue is that there is a shitload of AT weaponry all over the battlefield and it's got a 2 hit damage model against a lot of weapons. The armored car is NOT weak in the game though, its barely less durable than the FT light tank and the gun trucks.
Battlefield has always employed the move-fast-die-fast model for it's transports, and generally its a good model. The map design in BF1 just doesn't permit the open flanking that prior titles did.
The Y-lighter is NOT well designed, or useful. It's comparatively quite slow for the amount of ground it has to cover, the seats are not protected versus splash damaging infantry, it goes down to two hits from the AT plane. Basically it is a sitting duck compared to the armored cars because you're on a wide open body of water with no cover. If something goes after you, bet it a plane, or a boat you're absolutely dead and there is nothing you can do. The only thing it does compared to the torpedo boat is act as a spawn point when it beaches successfully.
1. Nice armoured cabin for the driver, so no getting sniped because your soldier is unable to move or take cover (looking at you torpedo boat).
2. Solid armament. 2 protected MGs with the amazing boat/ zeppelin MG damage model. They can defend the vehicle and support the infantry they transport without making the vehicle too powerful (it is a support vehicle after all). But it seems they must have fired the normal dev who for the last 3 games at least has insisted on weak weapons and exposed positions on all transports.
3. Decent enough armour not to be immediately one or two shotted by infantry.
4. If gunners or crew come under fire from unprotected directions they can unmount from their position and take cover inside the vehicle without the physics sperging out and throwing them out of the vehicle into the water.
Why can't all support vehicles in Battlefield games be this well designed?
The armored car has protected seating for all it's gunners. The issue is that there is a shitload of AT weaponry all over the battlefield and it's got a 2 hit damage model against a lot of weapons. The armored car is NOT weak in the game though, its barely less durable than the FT light tank and the gun trucks.
Battlefield has always employed the move-fast-die-fast model for it's transports, and generally its a good model. The map design in BF1 just doesn't permit the open flanking that prior titles did.
The Y-lighter is NOT well designed, or useful. It's comparatively quite slow for the amount of ground it has to cover, the seats are not protected versus splash damaging infantry, it goes down to two hits from the AT plane. Basically it is a sitting duck compared to the armored cars because you're on a wide open body of water with no cover. If something goes after you, bet it a plane, or a boat you're absolutely dead and there is nothing you can do. The only thing it does compared to the torpedo boat is act as a spawn point when it beaches successfully.
1. Nice armoured cabin for the driver, so no getting sniped because your soldier is unable to move or take cover (looking at you torpedo boat).
2. Solid armament. 2 protected MGs with the amazing boat/ zeppelin MG damage model. They can defend the vehicle and support the infantry they transport without making the vehicle too powerful (it is a support vehicle after all). But it seems they must have fired the normal dev who for the last 3 games at least has insisted on weak weapons and exposed positions on all transports.
3. Decent enough armour not to be immediately one or two shotted by infantry.
4. If gunners or crew come under fire from unprotected directions they can unmount from their position and take cover inside the vehicle without the physics sperging out and throwing them out of the vehicle into the water.
Why can't all support vehicles in Battlefield games be this well designed?
3. Decent enough armour not to be immediately one or two shotted by infantry.
Having just gone 49-2 on Cape Heles with the Y-Lighter against a fairly bad team, I can definitely say that this is the damage model the stationary and open topped jeep MG needs to have.
Having just gone 49-2 on Cape Heles with the Y-Lighter against a fairly bad team, I can definitely say that this is the damage model the stationary and open topped jeep MG needs to have.
I know those guys you played against pretty well, more often than not they're my teammates... One time they let the Brits get a whole flotilla of boats (cruiser included) in the back of our spawn... Clowns trying to snipe their way out of trouble, friendly pilots ignoring enemy planes and dropping nades everywhere except on enemy infantry/boats, what a nightmare.
That's why I no longer mess around with Cape Helles unless I'm on the British side...
Forum Software: Burning Board®, developed by WoltLab® GmbH
© Design by Symthic.com