How often are you killed by a HE round?

We are NOT talking about Launch HE.

And furthermore if infantry and tank weapons aren't comparable how can you claim that tank weapons are underpowered? They are underpowered relative to what?

We've already went over this multiple times in this thread.

Is this not teamwork? When you depend on your allies to provide counters to things that you cannot counter? To me that is exactly how the R-P-S system should work, instead of the alternative where that HE tank also has an AP cannon and a Skyguard strapped to it (which is how people who are against the R-P-S system would have it).

If it is the case that the counter-attack is properly organized and manned, then it would be effective. A counterattacking force of 30 AP tanks would likely defeat a mixed force of 15 AP tanks and 15 HE tanks. But to expect a much smaller group to be effective against a larger group that is practicing combined arms tactics seems a bit off.

Bases should be more difficult to defend... where the proper tactic is to counterattack the enemy, not stay in a fixed position. The best defense is a good offense, so they say. To stay put inside a base where the enemy can shell you should be the last line of defense, not the first. This is a basic military concept known as "defense in depth".

Furthermore force multipliers like tanks are actually better for an underpopulated side, so long as that side is more coordinated. That is because if you can knock out the enemy force multipliers while preserving your own through the proper tactical application of them, then all the enemy will be left with are infantry. And if your tanks can handily take on a dozen infantry each, then suddenly the enemy who had 60% population is far less effective.

For example, say that we have that 60-40 split. Initially the enemy brings in all sorts of force multipliers, but because they are inattentively besieging your base, you mount a counterattack and wipe out half of their force multiplier, reducing the enemy force to 25% tanks and 75% infantry (while your counterattacking force remains at 75% tanks and 25% infantry). If we say that each tank is worth 12 infantry, we see that the balance of power has shifted: the enemy has an "effective" force of 225 infantry while you have an "effective" force of 370 infantry.

On the other hand if one tank was worth one infantry, then it would remain 60 versus 40.

I suppose if you are both underpopulated, less skilled, and less coordinated, then you will lose badly to an enemy who can manage their force multipliers correctly. But anyone in that situation deserves to lose badly.

Well exactly. Because tanks should be performing better than infantry. Some free infantry with a free LMG shouldn't be as equally effective as an expensive tank... because why else would you ever pull tanks?

And if killing infantry behind cover would increase the effectiveness of tanks, is that not a solution to a logical goal?

Again, defense in depth dictates that base fights should be the last, most desperate ploy. If the enemy has already breached your layers of defense and pushed you into a base, you should have already lost that battle. This is not the Medieval ages where castles, walls, and moats are significant strongholds... with the invention of gunpowder weapons and high explosives, such areas are and should be deathtraps.

This is why modern military bases aren't actually heavily fortified at all:



You might get a chain-linked fence or something, but that's mostly it. And again, that's because bases aren't meant to be fought in, bases are meant to be fought around.

Pretty much if infantry are trying to "dig in" just a few meters from the capture objective, they're doing it wrong. They should be forming a combat patrol out in the hills, supporting their own armour and air elements in counterattacking the enemy.

I don't comment or read the forums like I once did, but it's always entertaining to watch infantry side biased players who love to defend how tank AI capabilities should be bad while infantry only get more and more options to damage tanks. Farming vehicles with AV weapons is fun to infantrysiders, but suggest that tanks be allowed to fight back on close to similar scale and suddenly you become a tanking scrub who likes to shoot at spawn room. The hypocrisy is real.

And the sad thing is that those "infantryside" guys took advantage of a dev team having problems over time.

Isn't prowler half the stated damage then x2, or is that an old thing?
Meaning AP does 600 damage per shot and 1200 for both conons..
Which would explain why Prowlers AP can't 1 shot ESFs like VS and NC can..

I know Prowler HE has the lowest Splash Damage and Splash Radius, basically making it pin point accuracy..
But we can fire more faster, making it fair cause all TR have 100% accuracy and can land every hit right?


We all know Prowler's stats on paper is BS, most of the Prowler kills are idle and static kills and mostly AMSs..
If they could define the stats of a Prowler killing moving targets and the stats of how many hits they actually land on those active targets would be greatly lower, and also define the Prowlers not using Anchor mode, because most of us don't actually use Anchor mode in the front lines.. The Prowler would greatly under perform because of the damage difference per shot, and Hit and Miss Ratio.

it is NOT 50%

It's 60-65%

Prowler has MUCH higher damage potential

It also has more miss forgiveness

BUT you need to shoot MORE, and hit more.

Each Prowler AP shot does 1,250 raw damage. ESFs have a 69% vulnerability to AP shell damage, meaning that each Prowler shot does 2112.5 damage to the ESF. Because ESFs have 3,000HP, a single Prowler AP shot will not kill an ESF.

The Vanguard's AP cannon does 2,075 damage, increased to 3,506.75 damage against ESFs. As this is greater than 3,000, Vanguards can OHK ESFs.

The Prowler HE cannon actually has the same splash radius as the Vanguard HE cannon, just lower damage. Both have their maximum damage at 1m and minimum damage at 5m. Velocity is also the same between the Prowler and Vanguard HE (unless the Prowler is locked down).

If your position is that a Prowler crew who 1) doesn't use their tank's unique power and 2) misses a lot would underperform, then I would agree with you.

Of course, a Vanguard or Magrider crew who didn't use their tank's special ability or was bad at aiming would also underperform.

At any point, the Prowler is definitely the most lethal AV/AI tank out there at the moment. The only thing it isn't best at is killing aircraft (that goes to the Vanguard).

As ridiculous as it sounds, my 100% health vanguard once blew up from single a TR lightning HE round. The death screen showed the damage wasn't assisted by anything, and 100% of the damage was from that one republic lightning with a HE gun.

Cheats? Bug abuse? Hit detection/damage glitch? I'm probably in a coma dreaming this stuff.

I still think the Stats lack a huge aspect of what the Prowler is actually killing when it comes to idle and static targets.
Prowlers are very easy to kill, especially in Anchor mode, none of our secondary weapons work in Anchor mode at the distance it's used in.

When it comes to Tanks in the sense of Rock Paper Scissors. In a 1v1, I believe the Mag and Vanguard out preforms the Prowler.
But many Prowlers at a "Distance" will mop up any armor quick at the expense of half the Prowler force.

When you have a Saron or Enforce that can do nearly the same damage as a Vulkan in half the time, followed by 1 or 2 AP hits and basically insta kills a Prowler, even though it needs to reload and works at a greater distance. There are many inconsistencies in Stats verses actual gameplay performance. I fully believe Prowler's advantage in kills is purely from supprise attacks on parked vehicles, and the stats aren't a real representation of the Prowler's performance in every day use.

It's like selling Lemon Cake, Angel Cake and Chocolate Cake, most people will buy the Chocolate Cake even though it's sickly and too sweet, and people would prefer to eat more of the other two, but indulge in the Chocolate cake, just because it's chocolate..

I would like to see a Stat sheet of MBTs who killed vehicles with an active crew, is all I'm saying.

Here's the MBT v. MBT data.

MBT Kills, 30 Days
Vanguard AP- 36,331
Prowler AP- 32,488
Magrider AP- 25,384

MBT AP Hours, 30 Days
Vanguard AP- 14,649
Prowler AP- 12,522
Magrider AP- 10,827

MBT Kills Per Hour
Prowler AP- 2.59
Vanguard AP- 2.48
Magrider AP- 2.34

So again, the Prowler is the best anti-MBT MBT.

If C4/Tank mines were attached to/near the tank, that's what it'll show, IIRC.

I wouldn't call hiding behind random players as teamwork nor use it to justify HE farm. Pre-nerf HE was low risk high reward weapon. You could just sit behind friendlies and spam hallways with explosives.

We are not discussing whether small group should be effective against larger group. We are discussing whether smaller group should even stand a chance against larger group. If you allow the zerg to HE spam the spawnroom then suddenly lots of fights will no longer be playable.

Most of the time you can choose 2 kinds of fights: one where you side is already outnumbering the defenders or you could try your luck and try to defend against overwhelming odds.

If attackers get the ability to spawnlock defenders with HE then half of the fights will simply become unplayable. I imagine the situation would look similar to the one we had before lattice got introduced: there will be large zergs running around capturing territory and avoiding each other.

RL military strategies don't necessarily transfer well to games nor are they necessarily fun.

I don't see why tanks using teamwork is somehow any different than infantry using teamwork.

When a sniper "hides" behind friendly infantry who are geared towards closer-ranged combat, is that not teamwork?
When a cluster of infantry rely on a Burster MAX or a MANPAD HA to frighten away aircraft, is that not teamwork?
When an Engineer resupplies a HA with a rocket launcher who deals with an enemy tank, is that not teamwork?

When a HE tank engages enemy infantry to protect an AP tank against said infantry and in return receives protection from other tanks, is that not teamwork?

Sure, maybe there is no direct communication between those people, but even in "organized" squads there often isn't. A balanced squad composition is usually good enough where squad or platoon mates will cover for the shortcomings of others.

And that's teamwork.

Nonsense. Because again, a zerg that is reliant on HE spam will in turn be weak to AP tanks. A much smaller force can absolutely wreck the enemy if they are solely concentrated in AI... it's just that the smaller force needs to at least be smart enough to pull tanks of their own and recognize their enemy's weakness.

Fights will not be playable as they are now. But the fights will still be playable... just in a different way. And this way involves using anti-tank tanks or aircraft to destroy the enemy's anti-infantry tanks.

The better HE is for killing infantry, then the more enemy tanks will be dedicated to that role. And the more HE tanks there are, the less AP/AA tanks there are. This again means a greater vulnerability to counters of HE tanks, namely AP tanks and aircraft.

Defenders are already spawnlocked as it is... you see the threads of course on spawncamping pop up very frequently. If it isn't a HE tank doing it (which is usually isn't, given Biolabs and such), it's infantry spawncamping. And again, the issue is that the defenders really have no clue how to fight and haven't gotten the message that bases aren't meant to be defended... they are meant to be staging grounds for a forward and aggressive defense.

Improving HE tanks won't make the spawncamping situation any worse at least (and that situation can only be solved through incentivizing/penalizing people inside the spawn room). And arguably because the enemy is so much the weaker against counterattack by AP tanks or aircraft if they use many HE tanks, it's actually a better thing for the enemy to be in HE tanks than to be spawncamping as infantry!

I prefer ap on my prowler and lightning that anythin g else because is a OHK guaranteed

Difference lies in risk and reward balance.

Heavy assault and Burster MAXs are nowhere near as powerful as pre-nerf HE tanks were. They are low-risk and low-reward. Sniper is potentially low-risk and high-reward infantry hardcounter but it requires lot of skill to hit moving targets, most people don't have this level of aiming skill so for them sniper is low-risk and low-reward.

Pre-nerf HE tank was high reward weapon which was neither high-risk nor required much skill to score hits against infantry.

Pre-nerf splash radius allowed small number of tanks to entirely spawnlock the defenders. So there is no reason for zerg to only concentrate in anti-infantry.

Besides smaller force can't even afford to bring tanks because they won't have enough people to defend the control point.
In any case smaller forces have a hard time dealing with being outnumbered as it is. Adding HE spam on top of that will just mean more spawncamping because eventually people will stop bothering to leave the spawnroom. Its kinda like when Zepher Liberator comes in a fight where his side outnumbers the defenders 2:1 and then starts barraging the spawnroom. It totally kills the fight.

And why didn't this happen back in the HE spam heydays? Don't you see: if people used AP tanks to counter HE tanks then there would be no complaints and HE nerf would never happen.

What kind of backward rationalization is this? "There is already spawncamping going on so why don't we have more of it?!" WTF

You agreed that HE tanks will make bases harder to defend. By definition that will produce more spawncamping.

Chingles, maybe its better if you explain to Cipher about the August 2014 Tank cannon nerfs & how they were not actually needed & broke the balance of the tank cannons.

I think the nerfs were actually needed because now HE drivers can finally use teamwork. Well think about it... before three or four HE tanks could spawnlock the defenders, today you need at the very least dozen of them to achieve same area coverage.

Do you understand how backwards *** your logic is?