infantry vs tanks

[Blanco]

I don't like the behaviour of the AI-infantry when they meet tanks, most of the time they go prone and do nothing, no cover or disengage at all, they're just sitting ducks.

Any AT-soldier(s) in the group has to send forward, the others have to flee for a while...

Is this possible ?


 

[KJAM]

and i'd like to see squads who dont have AT soldiers try their luck with their relatively small arms and shoot at the tanks  wud look cool

[General Barron]

and i'd like to see squads who dont have AT soldiers try their luck with their relatively small arms and shoot at the tanks  wud look cool

I don't really see what in the world a dinky bullet like a 7.62 could possibly do to an Abrams tank. Personally, if I were in that situation, I'd either hide or run like hell.

@Blanco

I'm not really sure what you are saying the AI should do when they meet a tank (non-at soldiers run away and get shot in the back?), and it seems to me that the AT soldiers always pull out their law/rpg and fire right away, not sit there doing nothing. However, modifying the AI vs tanks in general is a great idea I've never heard anyone else suggest before, and may be worth looking into (not sure exactly how to improve it though)

[O Neil]

Lol, I'd like to see in real life a soldier going up and shooting at a tank, see if he can kill it . . . oh dear, the tank hear it and shot the guy. Soz guys.

And idea could be that the infantry get down real fast, find cover and what not, and when the oppurtunity comes, plant or thow a satchul charge on the tank . . . I'm sure that would be hard to do in OFP . . . but that's what I'd do in real life.

Or another one would be is the crew is CARLESS, in other words looking out the top of the turret, Infanty have a go at him at close range

Just a few sugg.

(O'Neil

[General Barron]

Or another one would be is the crew is CARLESS, in other words looking out the top of the turret, Infanty have a go at him at close range

That would be cool, but I don't think you could get the AI to specifically target the guys who are sticking out of the hatches. You could only target the vehicle its self, in which case the AI would be like "Hell no, biatch! I ain't shootin' at that!"

And idea could be that the infantry get down real fast, find cover and what not, and when the oppurtunity comes, plant or thow a satchul charge on the tank . . . I'm sure that would be hard to do in OFP . . . but that's what I'd do in real life.

Also a good idea, but would be very hard to do in OFP.  :-\

[m21man]

I've always wanted to drop a grenade down the turret of a tank and watch someone fly out like a champagne cork. I could script it, I'm just too lazy. ;D

[SEAL84]

The problem here is that infantrymen are only issued AT weapons to make them feel better.

Your average Joe with a LAW, M136, or SRAW isn't going to scratch a tank unless he can catch it in a close-range ambush with a side or rear shot.  OFP can't really simulate ambushes and in fact the AT weapons in the game are rediculously overpowered.  

A guy I know was a Dragon gunner back in the mid-80s and he said the LAW was so worthless against armor that they were trained to use it against bunkers, jeeps, and people.

American infantrymen carry the M136 or SRAW and Rangers carry the Carl Gustav - none of them are powerful enough to take out an MBT.  While I'm on the topic, I should tell you that the real Carl Gustav isn't nearly as big or powerful as OFP makes it.

ATGMs are a different story - the Javelin can blast a T-72 into rubble (I've seen viedo), but not every infantry team has one because of their size and cost.  

Basically, infantrymen don't fight tanks unless they can set up an ambush.  OFP gives a huge boost to the AT weapons so that you can take them out, but in real life if you see a tank, you either hide, run like hell, or hope there's a gunship or friendly tank nearby.

So, how can you make it more realistic?

You'd have to drop the power of all the AT weapons in the game.  When you've done that, you need to drop the engagement range of AT soldiers A LOT and somehow make them only attack the sides or rear of tanks.  Finally, you need to make all tanks in the game practically blind when they're buttoned up (as they are in real life).  

O Neil is right - if they spot a tank they should get down, find cover, and wait for the tank to get in close before popping their AT weapons.

[Wildebeest]

SEAL84. I think you're refering to the newer version of the Carl Gustav when you say it's smaller than the one in OFP.
There are two versions of the Carl Gustav, the older M2 (14.2 kg)and the newer lightweight M3 (8.5 kg).

The M2 was introduced in 1969 and the M3 in 1988. Thus, it's the M2 we see in Flashpoint. As you can see it's big as heck:

http://www.hinet.net.au/~ozgrunt/Me%20with%20Carl%20Gustav%20at%20Holsworthy%201969.jpg

I might be wrong, though. I don't really know any army guys as you do so that's prolly a more reliable source.  

Or were you talking about the AT4?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/images/at4.gif

[GuyKorn]

Well LAWs werent invented for armored tanks like the abrams or t-72's or anything like that.  LAW stands for LIGHT Armored Weapon which means that it is used for like you said, cars, trucks, bunkers, people, or light armor like the earlyer BMP's

[SEAL84]

The M2/M3 discrepancy would explain it - hadn't realized there were two versions of it.

But really, the Carl Gustav and the M136 are fundamentally the same weapon.

With regard to the LAW, "light" only refers to the weapon's size.  US troops reportedly fired on T55s in Vietnam with LAWs and were dumbfounded when this, the latest and greatest antiarmor weapon, bounced off without so much as scratching the paint.

They quickly learned that it was almost worthless in it's intended role.  In fact, the LAW made its debut before the BMP did (LAW = early 1960s; BMP1 = 1967), so it was intended to take out the armored vehicles of its day - T-72s and M1s weren't even around back then.


But just an example of how overpowered AT weapons are....notice how it only takes one rocket to completely destroy an M113 or Bradley - M113s have been known to take direct RPG hits and keep going, and the Bradley was designed with that in mind.  That guy I mentioned earlier said that it's not possible to take out an M2A2 with a single RPG hit, yet in OFP I find that I hardly ever use the Bradley because of the ease with which enemy infantry turn it into scrap metal - and yes, I'm aware of the shortcomings of the Bradley and the fact that it's a snack for enemy tanks.

[Dubieman]

If you want the infantry to try their hand at shooting at tanks try placing invisible targets in front of the tanks. Inviible target anyone?

Tanks in OFP are NOT invicible to gunfire. In OFP every weapon has damage values and such as you already know...

Say an M16 has like a 0.35 damage vs military ppl, so you shoot someone in one place and they recieve that 0.35 damage. Then an M16 vs a T80 does 0.000001 damage to the T80 after every shot. So eventually after a while all those values will add up and the T80 can be destroyed...

I've done this once after learning that BMP with 0.95 damage blew up after I shot at it for awhile... An Abrams isn't exempt either. I destroyed one with an M60 machine gun and a hell of a lot of ammo boxes.(Took about twenty minutes on four times speed.) :thumbsup:

[SEAL84]

Yep, it's true....I've machinegunned a BMP with an M2...it took a couple hundred rounds, but eventually it blew up.  

The weapons do the same amount of damage to whatever they hit, but it's the armor values of the tanks that make it damned difficult to take them out with small arms.