BF1 Tank discussion - Page 3 - Battlefield 1: Technical Discussion

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,975)

Posts: 7,136

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

21

Monday, November 21st 2016, 10:11pm

Canister is inferior to LMGs.

It's too inconsistent right now.

Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

With this, I'll rid MGO3 of infestation. Sans bad gameplay MGO3 will be torn asunder. And then it shall be free. People will suffer, of course - a phantom pain.

Reddit and Konami will rewrite the records... And I will be demonized in human memory. But... The thirst for good gameplay that I have planted will infest MGO3. No one can stop it now. The Rebalance Mod will unleash that thirst unto the future.

Are you a scrub?

Quoted from "blahdy"

If it flies, it dies™.

tankmayvin

(3,530)

Posts: 2,013

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

22

Monday, November 21st 2016, 10:21pm

Quoted from "ChineseToTheBone"

Quoted from "tankmayvin"

The problem with the breakthrough is that the main gun sucks vs infantry so you need those autocannons operational.

Really? The Case Cannon cannot be that poor of a choice against enemy infantry.

Spread/pellet density is crap. If you're at range where you're getting reliable 1HK vs infy you're dangerously close to potential enemies and you need to be rather careful. Also because cannister shares a common pool of ammo with AP/HE you can't be liberal with it.

FT flanker though - spam cannister, it's awesome because you've got a deep mag pool so who cares if it takes 3 hits to kill infantry at range.

BleedingUranium

Salt Miner

(3,219)

Posts: 3,620

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

23

Monday, November 21st 2016, 11:31pm

I've been using the FT Howitzer and I love it. The very high damage cannon lets it be the glass cannon it needs to be, as you can even 1v1 AV7s as long as you're smart about it and good with positioning and movement. The LMG is also fantastic, being the only tank to have the classic cannon/MG combo, and no one expects it.

Enemies almost always try to fight you as they would the standard 37mm version, with its shared reload and ammo pool, timing their movement between the tank's shots and such. But that doesn't work vs an MG, as they learn the hard way.

Who Enjoys, Wins

Speccu

(12)

Posts: 10

Date of registration
: Nov 24th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

24

Friday, November 25th 2016, 1:44am

Perhaps a change to how the A7V handles rough terrain could help make the landship more attractive as an option. In real life the A7V was much worse at navigating trenches than either the Mark V or the FT due to its skirt around the tracks and its overall low ground clearance.

As for the vehicle part damage, it might be worthwhile to organize a few people in an empty server and experiment with limpet mine locations to find the engine on the mark V and other parts locations.

One thing also that has been overlooked on the viability of the A7V and Mark V vs the Renault is the fact that the A7V and the Mark V both function as armored spawn points for your entire team capable of deploying smoke or gas to ensure safety. Though I have no evidence I think the popularity of the A7v has to do with the driver getting the main gun to himself, while still feeling like you are contributing to the team via spawning whereas in the Mark V the driver may feel like a glorified taxi cab while the passengers have all the fun as it were.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Speccu" (Nov 25th 2016, 1:55am)

BleedingUranium

Salt Miner

(3,219)

Posts: 3,620

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

25

Friday, November 25th 2016, 1:53am

Quoted from "Speccu"

Perhaps a change to how the A7V handles rough terrain could help make the landship more attractive as an option?

irl the A7V was much worse at navigating trenches than either the Mark V or the FT due to its skirt around the tracks and its overall low ground clearance.

Yeah, having a skirt and being top-heavy were problems for it. It should definitely be the least mobile of the three, being the tanky tank. Landship should be best over terrain, with the FT being the most nimble.

Who Enjoys, Wins

Speccu

(12)

Posts: 10

Date of registration
: Nov 24th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

26

Friday, November 25th 2016, 1:59am

Quoted from "BleedingUranium"

Quoted from "Speccu"

Perhaps a change to how the A7V handles rough terrain could help make the landship more attractive as an option?

irl the A7V was much worse at navigating trenches than either the Mark V or the FT due to its skirt around the tracks and its overall low ground clearance.

Yeah, having a skirt and being top-heavy were problems for it. It should definitely be the least mobile of the three, being the tanky tank. Landship should be best over terrain, with the FT being the most nimble.

Yes I agree with those ideas.

I do also think a part of it is Dice's map design doesn't really support different tanks for different roles. One would think there would be more FT's in Amiens for example, with its narrow alleys and and the FT's size, speed, and turret allowing it to quickly adapt to changing battlefield conditions, but in practice most players simply pick the A7V and park it on or around the bridges.

A lot of the maps lack terrain that is impassable for the A7V, either by being too rough or too narrow, and there is a lack of cover in a lot of the maps where the FT could hide behind with only its turret peeking over.

DICE should really pay more attention to how World of Tanks maps are designed in the future.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,975)

Posts: 7,136

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

27

Friday, November 25th 2016, 7:09am

I still prefer the Mark V since I have 24/7 access to a reliable buddy.

Because of this, crewed vehicles like the Bomber and Landship are actually our preference.

Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

With this, I'll rid MGO3 of infestation. Sans bad gameplay MGO3 will be torn asunder. And then it shall be free. People will suffer, of course - a phantom pain.

Reddit and Konami will rewrite the records... And I will be demonized in human memory. But... The thirst for good gameplay that I have planted will infest MGO3. No one can stop it now. The Rebalance Mod will unleash that thirst unto the future.

Are you a scrub?

Quoted from "blahdy"

If it flies, it dies™.

ChineseToTheBone

(426)

Posts: 1,535

Date of registration
: Sep 7th 2016

Platform: PC

Location: Toronto

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

28

Friday, November 25th 2016, 9:44pm

I have actually yet been able to spawn in a Mark V Landship driven by a teammate. Are we sure they are not locked to squads just like Attack Planes?

Oscar

Sona tank jungle

(1,948)

Posts: 7,894

Date of registration
: May 30th 2012

Platform: PS4

Location: SURROUNDED BY FUCKING MOUNTAINS

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

29

Friday, November 25th 2016, 9:47pm

Landship is indeed locked to Squad Spawn.

Bro of Legion, the lurker ninja mod | Tesla FTW | RNG is evil.

Quoted from "MsMuchLove"

I find majority of the complaints I hear about this game somehow never appear in my games.

tankmayvin

(3,530)

Posts: 2,013

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

30

Friday, November 25th 2016, 10:16pm

Quoted from "Speccu"

Quoted from "BleedingUranium"

Quoted from "Speccu"

Perhaps a change to how the A7V handles rough terrain could help make the landship more attractive as an option?

irl the A7V was much worse at navigating trenches than either the Mark V or the FT due to its skirt around the tracks and its overall low ground clearance.

Yeah, having a skirt and being top-heavy were problems for it. It should definitely be the least mobile of the three, being the tanky tank. Landship should be best over terrain, with the FT being the most nimble.

Yes I agree with those ideas.

I do also think a part of it is Dice's map design doesn't really support different tanks for different roles. One would think there would be more FT's in Amiens for example, with its narrow alleys and and the FT's size, speed, and turret allowing it to quickly adapt to changing battlefield conditions, but in practice most players simply pick the A7V and park it on or around the bridges.

A lot of the maps lack terrain that is impassable for the A7V, either by being too rough or too narrow, and there is a lack of cover in a lot of the maps where the FT could hide behind with only its turret peeking over.

DICE should really pay more attention to how World of Tanks maps are designed in the future.

FT is very useful on Amiens, the problem is that it is made of paper and will invariably run into a tank that isn't an FT and it will lose since it lacks the speed to flee. You cannot pull down the main two roads fast enough and reverse into an alley before you die to cannon fire.

Also, because there is a field gun at every major engagement point, you will be facing heavy AT fire no matter what the enemy is fielding in terms of armor.

The A7V dominates simply because it is survivable.

Quoted from "MsMuchLove"

Similar threads