Why is it that a single infantry can 'solo' a MBT in this game?

Read my post again, and tell me where I said there should be no risk to tanks from infantry. I specifically cited 2 other ways for infantry to kill tanks. Calm down, Chicken Little, the sky isn't falling.

Except that history tells us that tank advances go much faster than infantry anti-tank advancements. This is because infantry anti-tank advancements are limited by weight, something that a much heavier tank does not have to deal with.

Consider tanks since WWI and how they have advanced against infantry AT weapons. I'll summarize it for you:

So yes, over time infantry AT weapons have simply not kept pace with improvements in tank technology. This has been a constant since the introduction of tanks in WWI, where infantry could pierce tank armor simply by shooting at it with general-issue rifles. Tanks are just increasing that gap with infantry more and more over time, and really infantry have reached about the limit of what an individual soldier can carry.

Yet the new Merkava IVs are excellent examples of tanks overcoming infantry AT weapons. Their ADS protects them from advanced ATGMs like Kornets, as was seen in the most recent conflicts.

Yes there will be MBTs lost to explosives... but these are hardly anything close to things that infantry can casually toss with one hand. Instead these are usually enormous IEDs, often a bunch of heavy artillery shells linked together. In other words you need a ton of explosives to knock out an MBT (even from below), which requires a lot of resources and time to place.

Odd. I mean it's not like we haven't had armed conflicts against comparable opposing forces in the past... and they've not been reduced to sticks and stones.

Conventional warfare, not some minor policing action. In conventional warfare the greatest damage is usually caused by artillery and airstrikes, then vehicle fire, and small arms are a very distant cause.

In real warfare, infantry don't kill other infantry as their first step. When infantry encounter enemies, they fix their position with fire and then call on heavier weapons to finish the job. The last thing you should do in infantry combat is to try to rush into an enemy-occupied building; it is far better to blow up the building and everyone in it as a military consideration.

And not like we have civilians or anything to worry about in PS2... even the infrastructure is impossible to permanently damage! PS2 is the perfect setting for using extremely powerful weaponry (friendly fire incidents after all are much more temporary too).

Tank cannon and air-dropped ordnance also outweighs whatever infantry can do as well. To fix these balance issues, A2G needs to be made more powerful, along with tank cannons and explosives (mortars, grenades, mines, etc).

In WWII as much as 75% of all casualties would have been caused by some sort of explosive... and only 10% to mines or bullets. PS2 is far off from this and this should be corrected as soon as possible.

I was being a bit more generous than just a C4... of course some sort of Explosively Formed Penetrator would be necessary (even shaped charges without an EFP are of questionable value against modern MBTs). Something like this:



But such a thing can't just be placed on a tank... it would need to be put some set distance from the tank and angled at the proper degree perpendicular to the tank (or under it).

Either way though, it's rather silly that infantry can carry explosives in PS2 that can be tossed by one hand to blow up a tank.

It's nearly impossible to C4 a tank that doesn't want to be C4'd, has nothing to do with the skill of the "C4er".

Depends on you. Some people learn quickly, take a long time for others.

AP not effective against infantry? How come? AP is great against infantry. HE and HEAT still need to fire almost against the target, so why not just... actually fire against your target? The higher speed of the AP round make it easier to hit them and OHK them. It's actually a better strategy against LA I would think, as in the air you just need a straight-up hit and can't use the AOE.

This is actually a big discussion in the tankers world: AP is so much more valuable than HE or HEAT because being better against vehicles will keep you alive more easily, since you can outrun infantry but you can't outrun most vehicles (if you can, you are either an Harasser or attacked from behind). So having better AV weapons is better for your survivability, and HE and HEAT is mostly used in safer environments when you have a lot of friendly tanks with you.
But this does bring up an interesting question. You are so afraid of large groups of infantry that you use HE... Because of an enemy that you claim can kill you before you can use your weapon, from a position where your HE weapon is less effective than AP...

They do, on a horizontal level. You already compared C4 to an LMG, while it is closer to a bomber. You need to pass over the target.

Because if you got "solo'd" in a MBT by C4 you let it happen. You made such a huge mistake that you deserved to die.
You cant C4 a MBT that doesent want to get C4'd.

C4 is a joke to avoid. You dont drive up next to a building or tower and sit there.
Near tight terrain you have radar, and out in the open you dont get C4'd. ever.
So basically, if you let someone run/jetpack up to you when you can just drive off or kill them, you deserve to blow up.

Next people are going to whine about getting killed by snipers because they stood still out in the open.
There are some things that is "common sense" in PS2. Things you just dont do.

But this is wrong. An american abrahams tank was hijacked in afganistan, and to stop it they simply popped a single anti material rifle shell into it's engine compartment from a nearby hill, the tank stopped as the turbine got damaged.

This is just one example, tanks break down ALL the time from ****** rpg 7's and other simple explosive weapons. The crew does not die, or even get hurt, and the tank just needs a quick patch, but the tank still need to be towed out of the hot zone by another tank...

Honestly it's just there for balance man. Mostly the c4 is for MAXs and that is what it's used for. But they should have something for tanks just from a gameplay stand point. Though to be honest....if they had nanites. One could just program a golfball sized group of nanites to disable a tank. So...just think of it that way. *throws nanites on tank...nantires proceed to eat away engine core....tank stops working.

Pretty much this.

Though I question why a LA would waste their time and resources on a MBT. In some circumstances it can be beneficial. But depending on the goal, it can be a waste of time.

I know in my static, when using LAs we don't normally target MBTs with C4. Its too risky, takes too long, and requires more luck than skill (network latency can really muck things up).

Usually what happens is a zergling pulls a MBT. Drives it up to a base and bombards a spawn for easy exp/certs. Of course a LA is going to see that MBT as a cert pinata and work their way over there.

In Short, Cert Farmers getting farmed by Cert Farmers Farming Certs while Farming Certs.

When you cert farm in the big nasty vehicle of death.. you gotta pay the piper once in a while and give certs back.

Those that use vehicles a little more objectively don't seem to have this issue as much. Its a little tough for a LA to get out 400m beyond their base to C4 you. Sure they could jump from a ESF. But if you're that far out, you're probably moving. Making it nearly impossible for a LA to nail you.

If tanks had nanites, they could just fire a shell that releases a nanite cloud that could eat away at all enemy infantry on a continent.

Nanites are never an acceptable explanation, because nanites could be used to justify just about everything.

I regularly C4 MBTs with an Engi or Medic, as well as LA. LA makes it easier, yes, but there is no way that it's a 0 TTK weapon, trust me. Its a high risk high reward system taken to an extreme. It is literally do or die as the infantry player in this situation, since all the tank has to do is move slightly.

The only way you're going to get C4ed, is if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time or you simply aren't paying attention. I very, very rarely get C4ed and when I do, the thought that crosses my mind is either "I should have been paying attention." or "I sat still for too long", not "Well that should never happen in this game."

As a matter of fact, when I get C4'ed, I whisper that player and congratulate them, because frankly I've been outplayed, and they deserve some credit.

As for the Realism v. Balance debate, let me point something out about technology:
A technological solution is a natural response to a need for humans, and if there is a need to destroy a MBT as an infantryman, then chances are, some clever man or woman would figure out a way to get it done. Never underestimate what a person or group of people can do when given a problem to solve.

As for the balance side of things, I think having C4 the way it is, is perfectly acceptable. Honestly, removing the ability to kill a stationary MBT would result in me and likely, many other people removing it from 95% of our loadouts. As a light assault, it's your only AV option, watering that down even further would basically reduce the LA into the same state as the infil: AI Only.

450 nanites will return in 9 min, while you cant earn 700 certs to get 2 c4 bricks in 9 min

This is such a ludicrous answer. LA can use jump pad with drifters to come from literally hundreds of meters away from more than 100 meters above you. They can drop from Valkyries 90 degrees above you. Lets not forget even if they miss and C4 lands beside your tank it will still take roughly 80% of your health away per brick. C4 takes around 3 seconds to deploy, there are many times you could be tracking a moving target with your gunner that requires that 3 seconds.

You want the real answer. As someone who has over 500 hours in a Prowler and now plays infantry as much as he tanks, the answer is infantryside developer bias. It's the same reason weapons like the Lancer have 600 meter no drop range which can literally instagib a platoon of armor in mere minutes if 6 or more guys get together in a massive scale combined arms game. It's the reason why weapons such as the Raven, which have a general consensus of being completely overpowered against vehicles by all 3 factions by the reddit community where the developers take the most feedback and respond most, are still in game and are not balanced. It's the reason why the vehicle eject bug wasn't fixed for months and vehicle users weren't compensated with a safe fall implant for months until they actually fixed it. The developers in this game have very little knowledge on vehicle balance, and through the many times I've talked to them either directly on teamspeak or here on the forums or Reddit it's clear they have little knowledge of vehicles.

Higby the lead creative developer didn't have more than 10 hours combined in the 3 MBT's, yet he had loads of infantry weapons auraxiumed. The new developer BBurnerss didn't notice that Blockade armor on Sunderers made them stronger in the rear, even though Sunderers reversing into battle with dual furies was a daily experience and as someone who uses tanks it was easy to understand how much harder Sunderers were to kill when shooting their rear if they had blockade armor on.

lol wut.
U serious right now?
lol.

I'm not sure what there is to not get. AP can be okay at AI, but HE is better. And since infantry have so many powerful AV weapons at their disposal (rocket launchers, AV granades, C4, AT frisbees mines), it can be more beneficial to take HE to populated areas so that you can reliably shoot the suicide bombers who charge your tank. Of course, with C4 fairies who fly overhead at 100m, this doesn't matter.

If you're not 'touching' the target, it's not 'melee'. That's all there is to it.

C4ing a vehicle relies on bad awareness of that vehicle. The vehicle must:
1 - be in a bad position
2 - tunnel vision (not look around)
3 - stay that way for a time necessary for the infantry man to run up to it, put 2x C4 on it, and detonate.

It doesn't take much skill to run up to a vehicle's back and put C4 on it. But the vehicle must first make itself vulnerable. If you get C4'd, you most likely did something stupid, like driving too far into enemy territory, or staying in a bad position for too long.

It's not any different from a MAX running into a room full of infantry, dying to focus fire, and then coming to forums to whine how MAXes are not armored enough, and how they should be immune to small arms fire.

You can moan and complain and write "lol uwot mate" or you can do something useful and ask fellow players how to avoid getting C4'd.

1. This can effectively be anywhere a flying vehicle can be, or can be hundreds of meters from any tech plant, jump pad, or cliff.
2. You can't look 90 degrees up where LA's come from and MBT's have a limited turret elevation to look up.
3. Which is effectively 3 seconds which is nothing if you are trading rounds with another tank or tracking a moving target..'

You are almost always vulnerable to C4 regardless of how good you are due to the nature of LA's themselves. I'd say 90-95% of my deaths to C4 are from LA's. It's because they can effectively negate situational awareness.

Actually it is different from a max running into a room full of infantry. The Max is dying to multiple enemies, not a single LA with C4, the max is going into an obviously dangerous room of enemies, not in the middle of a field in the same hex as a cliff, jump pad, or large building. The Max can be revived after such an occurrence, the MBT can not. Most people don't think tanks should be immune to C4, I don't, but the current relationship where 1 stick does roughly 80% of a MBT's health is broken.

Unfortunately Iridar has me blocked or ignores me so he won't see or respond to this, either way I like picking apart his arguments.

So what you're saying is that avoiding C4 takes some skill, but placing C4 doesn't? Even though the tank is the more expensive force multiplier?
If that's the case, then, compared to a tank:
- C4 is cheaper
- C4 is just as effective at killing the tank as the tank is at killing the infantryman (both instant kills, for all intents and purposes)
- C4 is easier to use than it is for the target to avoid
- C4 is simultaneously extremely effective at both AI and AV
- C4 is thrown and thus can be 'placed' from great range
- C4 can be 'pulled' from any terminal
This isn't a question of whether or not I'm good at avoiding C4. It's a question of whether C4 is balanced for what it is. I think that answer is "no".

If 450 nanites will return in nine minutes, how long do you think it will take for 150 nanites to return?
How long would it take to earn all the certs that went into any random tank you encounter? can you guarantee that it will always be shorter than the time spent ranking-up jump jets?
I know I am being flippant but I'm trying to draw contrast to your argument.

Thread was started by someone who lacks basic situational awareness.

Look. Normally I'd invite you on a quest for truth, and have a civil discussion. But "C4 vs tanks" is a very old, often repeated discussion. I got better things to do with my time than repeating every old argument for the billionth time just for you. I know C4 is not OP. Good tankers know C4 is not OP. You can join good tankers, or you can keep saying what a hundred people said before you, which won't lead to anything productive.