Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Posts: 150

Date of registration
: Nov 8th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Chicago, NYC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

31

Tuesday, November 12th 2013, 8:06am

IR smoke doesn't do anything against wire guided.

Well maybe if they're wire guided but launched against laser. Haven't tested yet.


In my experience wire-guided (i.e. SRAW) missiles behave like and share the caveats of Javelin missiles when they're fired with a lock-on to a laser designated target.

To clarify, while one might assume "if my laser lock is broken by countermeasures that's OK, as long as I hold ADS the rocket will still navigate toward my reticle and continue on its path to my target thanks to the built in wire guidance system," but in my experience this is false. SRAW rockets fired when laser-locked don't have wire guidance, same as "hip-fired" SRAW rockets (if you hip fire a SRAW, then afterward ADS and try to guide the rocket, you'll notice that the rocket won't respond. Thus if a laser-locked SRAW missile loses its laser lock it simply becomes a dummy missile and zips off into space.

At least that's how I understand it.
My soldier profile. Numbers are overrated anyway.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Werewolf" (Nov 12th 2013, 8:17am)


Posts: 21

Date of registration
: Jul 4th 2013

Platform: 360

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

32

Tuesday, November 12th 2013, 8:54am

So far I run AP shells + Staff Shells as my weapons - Reactive, INVR, and smokescreen as the other upgrades or whatever.

The doubleshotting that you get w/ AP + Staff = win....at least on the 360 it is.

Posts: 108

Date of registration
: Apr 28th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

33

Tuesday, November 12th 2013, 9:08am

I played with the Active Protection System some more yesterday. It can indeed block tank shells. :O I think that alone makes it the best countermeasure.

Posts: 396

Date of registration
: Oct 14th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

34

Tuesday, November 12th 2013, 10:00am


The reason why tank battles are generally at low velocities in bf3 and bf4 is because of the presence of the sprint bug. This bug forces you to move at low velocities (or even stationary). Otherwise, you essentially give your opponent free shots to your rear.

Playing your "Rommel" style against any competent opponent will get you killed almost instantly.


Shame I haven't encountered any competent opponents despite having played since BF 1942 then. You see, you are assuming they are hitting me for those "free shots to your rear". Much of the point of maintaining high operational velocity is to not get hit.

But, for all means, I love when people get glued to a spot in tank duels so preach on brother!
Lemmings be lemmings

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Hithel" (Nov 12th 2013, 11:45am)


Posts: 1,487

Date of registration
: Jul 20th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

35

Tuesday, November 12th 2013, 3:30pm

Quoted



I haven't encountered any competent opponents


Apparently so. Glad you admit it.

Posts: 396

Date of registration
: Oct 14th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

36

Tuesday, November 12th 2013, 3:54pm

Quoted



I haven't encountered any competent opponents


Apparently so. Glad you admit it.


Do you skeptics have an actual argument or is quoting out of context/snark and ad hominem the best you can do?

Am I making a controversial claim by saying that it's better to not be hit by maintaining a high maneuverability rather than relying on sheer durability?
Lemmings be lemmings

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,282)

Posts: 2,690

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

37

Tuesday, November 12th 2013, 4:10pm

Right now I came to use the Staff shells in combination with the AP-Ammo, Reactive Armour and smokescreen. You are in desperate need of a gunner then though to take out infantry and overly eager choppers, but at least you do not run out of ammo at all and can take on one tank after the other.

I am actually really happy, despite being appalled at first, by the gunner HMG, the damage is not spectacular over infantry but you can surely keep these choppers away from your tank. They will think twice about doing another turn over your tank if they lose half their health in the progress.

What I found annoying, and even more than in BF3, is the vertical angle you can point your main and secondary weapon, which is way too low for the vertical gameplay BF4 offers. In combination with the highly unstable ground with thousands of boulders, hills, rocks, craters that will screw up your angle and line of sight you are highly vulnerable at close and from upwards, by both vehicles and infantry. This effect is furthermore increased by the instability of the main cannon, when driving even through the smalles puddles, making shots on the move a dice game (pun intended). As far as I recall the MBTs of these times have sensible machinery to diminish the sway of the cannon while moving.

For the much I love graphics and landscapes, driving through a crater while trying to get a clear side shot on a stationary tank will only esure that you are hitting a duck square in the face a couple hundred of metres away and exactly at the same height.

Posts: 1,487

Date of registration
: Jul 20th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

38

Tuesday, November 12th 2013, 4:48pm

Quoted




Am I making a controversial claim by saying that it's better to not be hit by maintaining a high maneuverability rather than relying on sheer durability?


Not a controversial claim, just an ignorant one.

Relying on "high maneuverability" simply doesn't work against competent opponents. That's a fact proven over and over again at the highest level of play.

Your biggest assumption is that if you remain on the move, you won't be hit. That's not true, since a tank in motion is very predictable and easy to hit. Skilled tankers can also it any side of your tank no matter how fast you're moving and which of your sides are facing them. I once got gibbed by darktan's IFV by 9 rounds to the rear, while I was over 300 meters away, over a hill, completely out of line of sight. He didn't just got me once, he hit me NINE TIMES IN A ROW, zero missed shots, when he couldn't even see me except on expanded minimap.

You think by simply moving, you'll save yourself against a skilled tanker? Think again.

Posts: 396

Date of registration
: Oct 14th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

39

Tuesday, November 12th 2013, 5:36pm

Quoted


Am I making a controversial claim by saying that it's better to not be hit by maintaining a high maneuverability rather than relying on sheer durability?


Not a controversial claim, just an ignorant one.

Relying on "high maneuverability" simply doesn't work against competent opponents. That's a fact proven over and over again at the highest level of play.

Your biggest assumption is that if you remain on the move, you won't be hit. That's not true, since a tank in motion is very predictable and easy to hit. Skilled tankers can also it any side of your tank no matter how fast you're moving and which of your sides are facing them. I once got gibbed by darktan's IFV by 9 rounds to the rear, while I was over 300 meters away, over a hill, completely out of line of sight. He didn't just got me once, he hit me NINE TIMES IN A ROW, zero missed shots, when he couldn't even see me except on expanded minimap.

You think by simply moving, you'll save yourself against a skilled tanker? Think again.


I don't see what this has to do with anything I wrote in my original post so I'll quote it for you.

Quoted

I'd say that the best way to take out other tanks is to move in low traffic areas of the map and have a very high operational velocity. Far to many tank drivers become entirely static the second they are hit and just look around hoping to outgun whatever it was they hit them. In other words they completely sacrifice any evasive maneuver. This is foolish. For this reason Reactive is probably the best pick in this spot as a los of mobility is certain doom.


This isn't any different from how it's sensible to operate in the infantry game. Utilize less obvious routes (more coveR), pick your targets and be decisive. No one's claiming just moving around is a one size fits all solution.

I don't know what to take away from your post other than that you seem to consider aiming/leading to be the single element that makes a "skilled tanker". This I consider a far more radical claim than the tactic I propose.
Lemmings be lemmings

Posts: 1,487

Date of registration
: Jul 20th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

40

Tuesday, November 12th 2013, 5:44pm

Then you have hilariously poor reading comprehension.

I mentioned explicitly that the sprint bug exists, and if triggered, you get killed very fast. Maintaining a "high operational velocity" in active combat is near suicide against skilled tankers.

Taking less obvious routes and flanking is fine. Using high speed in actual combat is suicide for the reasons that I've already mentioned. It's up to you if want to believe me or not.