c4 vs fully certed MBT

What? You asked who detonates bricks one at a time. I just told you. I didn't say anything about who should be able to kill whom. Try failing less at reading comprehension next time.

You also dodged my question: how do you get from "you miss one brick and have one brick left" to "it should do less damage"? What's the argument?

Do you read the thread or is **** posting your talent?

I read the thread.

Now, stop dodging: How do you get from "you miss one brick and have one brick left" to "it should do less damage"? What's the argument?”

My first post in this thread and my only opinion on the subject of c4 vs tanks is that single bricks do too much damage. If you missed one of your 2 or cant stick 2 on at the same time for your cheese instagib, too bad. That's how I got to "it should do less damage".

So you got to "it should do less damage" from "it should do less damage"? It's been a while since I came across genuine circular reasoning, thanks for that!

What I'm asking is why should it do less damage.

Why should a general purpose non-shaped plastic explosive do more 'per shot' damage from all angles to an MBT then weapons specifically designed to counter armor?

What does it matter what the weapon is shaped like? What matters is gameplay. (FWIW: I don't think the C-4 in PS2 is the exact same thing as the C-4 in real life. It's just called C-4 because it's a familiar term for something that sticks to things and blows up with a remote detonator. Its damage, radius etc. can all be explained away with 'nanites' - that's all the explanation you need when the only thing that actually matters is gameplay.)

For purposes of gameplay, what is the reasoning for the claim that C4 does too much damage?

Well, here is my reasoning that C4 does too much damage.

Tanks are enormously more expensive, 450 nanites for a MBT and 350 nanites for a Lightning. How much does infantry cost? Zero. Infantry should not complain when they die because they will just be reborn somewhere for free.

The math simply does not add up. One block of C4 costs 75 nanites, and two blocks are needed to destroy any tank. So with only 150 nanites, an infantry can destroy a MBT which costs 450 nanites. How is that fair? It is absurd that a very inexpensive weapon is allowed to destroy a very expensive tank with one press of the trigger, while a tank built to destroy other tanks needs to press the trigger multiple times.

What about certification wise for an anti-tank build (after all, we are talking about destroying tanks)? In order for a MBT to kill a tank most efficiently, it needs the anti-tank turret, which costs 750 certs. For the tanks secondary, it needs the Halberd, which costs another 750 certs. That is a total of 1500 certs in order to kill a tank with another tank efficiently and with the lowest "time to kill". The time to kill with this kind of build is at least 6 seconds. Now for infantry, it costs only 700 certs to unlock two blocks to C4. Its time to kill is roughly 2-3 seconds.

If a tank is maxed out for anti-tank build, it means that it loses its effectiveness against infantry, while infantry still maintains its effectiveness against infantry with the use of its small arms. The anti-tank tank build do not have weapons that have a high enough muzzle velocity, high enough rate of fire, or large enough splash radius to be effective against infantry, all of which infantry does have with their small arms and grenades. C4 just makes infantry too versitle. In an instant, any infantry class, with the exception of the infiltrator, can be an effective anti-tank unit.

The amount of damage C4 does is just simply absurd and illogical. C4 is incredibly inexpensive compared to a tank making it arguably a more viable anti-tank weapon than an actual anti-tank cannon. Infantry also have a stealth factor to be considered because it is much more easier for everyone to spot a tank than a tank to spot a soldier sneaking up behind it or a light assault flying above it. It is simply illogical that a high explosive, non-penetrative explosive is destroying tanks more effectively than an anti-tank cannon. Why aren't these tanks load with C4 rounds instead since there so effective against tanks? Shouldn't the most effective weapon against a tank is another tank like today's modern combat since Planetside 2 parallels modern combat so well?

Buffing tank armor against C4 wouldn't be the end of the world for infantry. There are a tons of other ways to kill tanks, though not as effective as C4, such as the engineer's AV-Turrets, base turrets, bombers, tanks, and hand held rocket launchers. Out of those, infantry can use the engineer's AV-Turrets, anti-tank grenades, and rocket launchers. At least those weapons are limited to certain classes and require knowledge of infantry-based anti-tank tactics, such as flanking a tank and ambushing it in a closed environment.


C4 is simply overpowered. Tank armor needs to be buffed against C4 so that two blocks of C4 puts a MBT on half health or a Lightning on critical.

Tanks are expensive because they last longer, increase your mobility, protect you from damage and can easily get you dozens of kills. C4 does none of those things. It's good for 1 or 2 kills if everything goes perfectly, 0 otherwise.

Infantry aren't free. They're constantly spending nanites on grenades, medkits, explosives, mines and deployables whereas tanks are a large one time investment.

You're ignoring some important stuff here:

• Tanks can kill moving targets, C4 can't
• Tanks are effective between 0 and 500m, C4 is effective at point blank range only
• Tanks offer increased mobility, speed and damage resistance, C4 doesn't offer any of that

Those are huge differences. They're completely different weapons, comparing just their TTK is useless without looking at the bigger picture.

It can be an effective anti-tank unit in a very specific set of circumstances. Chiefly the target has to:

• Be completely stationary
• Be within running distance (lets say 50m max, if you want to get there before he moves again)
• Not be in an open area
• Not be surrounded by other vehicles or infantry
• Not have prox radar or a secondary gunner worth his salt

If all those things check out then yes, you can probably try to C4 it. If any one thing doesn't check out then that infantry's AV capability just dropped to 0.

It's useless against moving targets and has an effective range of 5m. I wouldn't call that a viable alternative to an anti-tank cannon. Just imagine if AP cannons worked like that, 2 hits to kill an MBT but if they move at all or are more than 5m away you can't touch them. How amazing would that be?

None as easy to counter as C4 either. You just have to move your tank and you've completely defeated C4. It's the one form of AV that actually penalizes drivers for lazy, sloppy playing, so of course it becomes the target of hate on the forums. One thing you have to actively think about while driving near infantry, everything else you can just react to because you can soak it up. Is that really too much to ask? A little bit of thought and situational awareness?

I've read all kinds of arguments for and against C4, the one thing I will agree with is that dropping LAs out of Valks or Galaxies is too effective. But that's a "problem" with the Valk and the Galaxy. And I say "problem" because maybe SOE wants it to be this way. Maybe a little bit of teamwork is supposed to be very effective. But even in this situation you're completely safe when you're moving, so learn to better judge when to move and when to stay still. Just like we infantry have to do all the time.

And shells are free at any rearm tower/sundy. C4 charges nanites per every shot, even if you miss. Tankers who say that C4 is cheap should be given free tank but charged 100 nanites per shell.

IMO, only nerf C4 could use is +1 sec arm time. When C4 drops in infantry crowd, you usually dont have enough time to react, even if you see it.

Of course a tank is a major threat to infantry.

It's a ******* tank.

By this logic, infantry should never be able to damage tanks at all. They don't cost anything, so statistically they lag infinitely (actually impossible) behind in costs, so they should be infinitely less effective against them.
There is much more to deal with. It takes much more skill and manpower to take down a tank than it does to take down infantry trying to kill you. Last time I had an AP lightning, it took 8 dumbfire rocket dudes to take me out, and I got 12 kills (medics were available to them) before dying. Though they weren't very intelligent in their attack despite the flanking, they deserved to kill me, and actually deserved my kill much sooner.

The two blocks stand for your failure. You let someone get close, and they deserve to kill you in exchange for some nanites. If they are skilled enough to get close to you on any other way, they deserve to kill you. Your skill against them can be much lower to counter infantry. They need manpower (distraction) and skill to cover the gap between you and themselves before the C4 is effective. You are effective at nearly all ranges. And again, by this logic rocket launchers that cost no nanites should do no damage against tanks?
I would choose a weapon that has to be pulled multiple times but with a range of 0 - 300+ meters to destroy a tank over a handheld 0-2 meters one hit kill. Tanks are mobile, in case you didn't notice. An infantry is hopelessly outmanouvered most of the time, except if a tank comes into bases or near outcroppings and such. Even than it can run from the mighty C4.

You have me here. C4 only costs 600 certs, which is much lower. The thing is that you have this awesome incredibly shortranged and hard to aim weapon on a relatively high vulnerable target.
The TTK argument is moot. You take a few seconds to get into position and pound a target. TTK 6 seconds you say! So a total of lets say 20 seconds, to include positioning. Lets see how the LA does. It starts running and flying towards a target. Move through the trees, use outcroppings, cover for other infantry and tanks to prevent being spotted. If you are lucky, you'll do 20 seconds. Unlucky, you could do 2-3 minutes. Take in account that the target is smart and stays mobile. C4 misses or you get spotted, and the TTK is out of scope. Also, when we do blow up a tank. What is our next move? We cannot blow up another one. We lost all our power for one kill at 1/3 of the nanite cost. You can go on to the next target with your TTK and blow that up.
You assume perfect conditions where a tank is right next to the spawn bunker, anchored, looking at the birds and ignoring everything so we can C4 him. Then we grab more C4 and blow up the tank that is on the other side of the spawn bunker. This is simply not the case. No infantry is an effective anti tank with only C4.

A tank loses effectiveness, but I have to say that you can still kill more with an AP tank than a HA. That is why a tank has armour you know. Infantry are comically weak against any tank weapon. By the time someone is close enough with C4, they are most likely dead. That one instant that they are effective is rare, and you should be punished for letting them so close.

C4 is only effective in a select few situations. Overall, it is not effective, as you need to be close or above the target, overcoming a sh*tload of obstacles before reaching your goal. Rocket launchers and AV-turrets can be used in masses and complementary to each other. They have reach and can decent damage. That is effective. C4 power rests on the skill of the infantry or a failure of the tank driver, so it balances out. I don't know how often you get C4'ed, but I hardly encounter a successful C4 attempt. There is balance if after a certain amount of kills they do succeed.

From my experience in tanking things generally go like this.
>driving along
>start fighting
>win fight without taking much damage
>die from 1 c4 at basically max health

How is that fair? If they want c4 to instagib tanks, fine, but it doesn't need to do so much damage per brick. Even if it doesn't kill you it makes you a sitting duck for anything. Most of all it usually doesn't even affect the mouth breathers you want to kill, the HE tanks. It's just people charging at you while you are actually tanking and not infantry farming.

You are also ignoring some significant factors here and some of your points are wrong.
C4 can kill moving targets if it is placed at the correct spot and detonated at the correct time similarly to how in order to hit moving targets with a cannon, the cross hairs need to be aimed at the correct spot and the trigger needs to be pressed at the correct time.
Sure tanks can fire a round 500 meters, but the main question is if that round flying at a mere 275 m/s will hit anything. The tank most effective range is around 100 meters or less, anything higher will require significant aim compensation for the slow muzzle velocity and large shell drop. Sure C4 can only be deployed at a range of 5 meters, but you are ignoring the fact that the infantry carrying a rifle also is capable of killing from 100 meters away. You cannot ignore the rifle that infantry carries because without infantry, C4 is completely useless.
Tanks offer mobility, speed, and damage resistance only in certain scenarios. Those advantages work only in somewhat open terrain such as hills and open fields. Those advantages are gone when the tank enters more enclosed environments such as urban areas, valleys, and canyons. In that situation, tanks lose their mobility and speed to obstacles, and their damage resistance becomes negligible because of their large size, making it easy for all anti-tank weapons to hit their mark. Obviously C4 does not offer any of those advantages mentioned in this paragraph, but the infantry that carries the C4 does. Because of their smaller size, they have increased mobility and stealth advantage.

You are just making it sound more difficult than it needs to be when an infantry wants to destroy a tank with C4.

The tank does not need to be completely stationary. C4 can be placed on the road and detonated when a tank passes by. When a tank is reversing, infantry can easily catch up to it, especially light assaults, and place C4 on the tank and detonate.

The requirement for a more closed area is not necessary, but it will help with stealth.

A tank surrounded by other vehicles and/or infantry will be difficult to kill regardless of the anti-tank weapon. This is usually because there are engineers in the mix and other weapons providing suppressive fire.

Even if the tank has a secondary gunner, light assaults can fly above the angle of elevation of the secondary gunner, drop and detonated the C4.

Killing a tank with C4 is easier than you made it out to be.

Actually it is a bit too much to ask to allow C4 to instantly destroy tanks. C4 does not penalize, it just destroys, no matter how good a tank driver one can be. There are a variety of tactics that can be used with C4 that a tanker cannot counteract. Usually tankers do not have the luxury of moving around without exposing themselves even further, such as in enclosed areas, or even open fields where there is limited cover.

Hitting a moving target is significantly harder.
Using C4 is basically a mine, but rarely works because it glows and tank drivers very frequently use EOD hud. I usually have to trick a tank into driving over a "miss"
For a platform that has a main feature of mobility, losing mobility often results in death, from many, many causes that are not c4.
Tanks reverse speed is much faster than infantry speed.
Killing novice anything is easy.
Skilled tankers readily and easily avoid C4 regularly. I could probably produce a video from a few good play sessions.
As a drifter that is not incompetent at putting c4 on things, I generally avoid MBTs and prefer to take stationary sunderers. I even prefer to take harassers and esfs, who theoretically avoid c4 more easily, but make the same positioning mistakes novice tanks do.