DayZ Needs a Tank

[DayzForumer 284]

No.

Why?

Because, the Ural is a makeshift tank. Use it.

Also, why would there be 500~ APC's everywhere? Just think of the abuse.

[Clumzy (DayZ) 377]

honestly in RL ( in such kind of scenario) it would be much more realistic to find armoured personnel carriers than an anti vehicle monster sniper...also a lot more people would be able to drive such a thing than to fly a helicopter...this includes armed forces members ( or ex) but also civilians ...the question is how the game could or should handle these things ( military equipment) in a realistic way....

Like I said, I don't think .50s should be in the game. And if you have experience driving a tank, then I'll believe you. But the fact is that there are civilian jobs flying a helicopter, but none that require driving tanks. In general, this game shouldn't be handling military equipment like tanks. Leave that to ArmA.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Clumzy

[-Gews- 7443]

Also, fun fact, ARMA doesn't model bullet penetration so with enough patience you can destroy any vehicle, including an M113, with a Makarov.

Actually it does model bullet penetration and you can shoot people out of certain armoured vehicles. What it doesn't model properly is armour... as far as I can tell, armour just means "lots of extra hit points".

An RPG-7 can't take out a T-34 in one shot even though it could easily destroy a T-34 or a Tiger or any other WWII tank, but the same RPG-7 can take out an Abrams or a T-90 in a few shots, even though that would almost certainly not happen in real life. Not to mention the terrible Stryker armour with non-functional SLAT or the ERA that doesn't E.

[ZomboWTF 527]

An Ohio class nuke sub please.

Serriously ...We need less military not more.

this

giving the players functioning m4 and m16 variant though they are jammed by lying in dirt for half an hour... you get the picture

i wouldn't shed a tear if all those fn fal, as 50 m107 M4 and M16 variants would all be super-rare and only in high military loot to find, as well as the accurate military sniping rifle m24, or at least if they would need repairing parts to function again

odds are it would be pretty hard to find even a AKM or another AK variant if such a disaster were to occure, not to mention finding a functioning one (though the AK rifles are very sturdy)

[FlashHawk4 44]

First off, I apologize for the length. A neat little summary is avaliable at the bottom.

There are a number of reasons why the presence of armored vehicles in an event would be plausible. In terms of the real world, I'd more or less agree with this, for the following reasons:

1. Of course there will be armored vehicles lying about in the event of an apocalyptic, societal-breakdown-grade event like the one this game depicts. The military will obviously be sent out, and they won't be leaving their heavy equipment at home. APCs like the one pictured will most likely be used in roadblocks and quarantines, which, in conventional zombie lore, tend to get overrun. The soldiers may or may not get a chance to drive them away in the event of said overrun (multi-ton, massive-diesel-engine armored vehicles aren't quite instant ignition like the average sedan, after all). Others will be left ready at high alert on military bases. Obviously, they will be present.

2. Zombies do not have anti-tank/anti-aircraft capabilities. Why there are so many catastrophically-killed BMPs dotting the landscape is beyond me. Unless there was a full-blown civil war that coincided with societal collapse, there is no reason for there to be explosively-destroyed armored vehicles around. So, the military's armor will not be catastrophically killed. Mobility problems, like a broken tread or engine problems, will occur just like in any other military op. Crew kills might hypothetically occur, if the zombies get incredibly, incredibly lucky. Perhaps someone decided to pop the emergency escape hatch on the bottom of certain tank models to take a piss, as many tankers do. Perhaps then a conveniently placed zombie, irritated by that golden shower, proceeded to climb up into the belly of the beast. Perhaps the crew got out of the tank for a second, as obviously people have always done since the invention of the tank, and the zombies chased them off. Any way you think about it, the number of AFVs that get destroyed or rendered inoperable will be fewer than the number left idle and unattended.

3. It's not IMPOSSIBLE to learn how to drive an armored vehicle. For starters, you don't automatically die if you have no idea what you're doing, like flying a helicopter or jumbo jet. Many have steering wheels, and the rest use a lever-based approach that can be figured out in about half an hour. I believe the M113 is the latter. Maybe up to 75% of them will end up somewhere stupid, like in a basement, a ravine, or a pond while people try to figure the controls out. But the other 25% will be successfully figured out.

4. What most people don't quite consider is that even though the military command structure broke down, there will obviously still be soldiers. Soldiers are the ideal candidates for surviving a zombie apocalypse, provided they aren't personally given suicide missions, and just like how you and your neighbor might team up because you're friends, Private Jones and Private Frank would conceivably team up because they've spent the last two years side by side. And, if they were in an APC, then boom. 1, 2, and 3 are all solved already. There's a trained driver, and they don't have to get the vehicle secondhand from an abandoned fortification. So those guys will be roving the wastes, obviously.

Now the GAMEPLAY reasons why I think an APC might be beneficial.

1. Given the absence of DIY armored vehicles in ArmA, an APC would fill the niche of heavily-armored big-dog survivor vehicle. It would be useful for fielding rescue calls in conjunction with a radio communications system., or a search-and-destroy mission, or a combat medevac operation. It would also be an invaluable tool for aspiring law enforcers. When these wasteland marshal types receive a call reporting a hostile sniper in a bush somewhere, they would love to have an armored vehicle to let them roll up to the area without the risk of a sniper killing the driver from behind the windshield. And of course PvPers would love it too.

2. Obviously this is not something that would be avaliable on one's first day in Chernarus, nor even one's first week in Chernarus. It would be a long-term goal to strive towards, which this game is seriously lacking in my opinion. Part of the reason I think there is so much mindless PvPing is because people simply get bored; much like this Russian project I was involved with, an MMO variant of Fallout 2 called Fallout: Online, when all you give players are guns and bullets, that's what people go with. They look for the best guns and the best bullets, they find other people with the best guns and the best bullets, and they fight people. Clearly repairing an armored vehicle and keeping it fuelled (more on that later) will be a task that requires trade and cooperation with others. It's not something you can really accomplish while leading a solitary bandit lifestyle.

3. I want a tank.

Now, the reasons why I think this is a BAD idea:

1. Armored vehicles' fuel usage is measured in hundreds of liters, not individual liters or even dozens of liters. A five-gallon jerry can would hardly even whet an APC's appetite; they have gas tanks designed to hold between 250L to 1000L of fuel, depending on the model, and they use every drop of it in an extended operation. Most likely a patrol of Chernarus's coastal highway would take over 150L of fuel in an M113, and that's a lot of jerry cans. And I'm personally not a fan of introducing more jerry cans to quiet whiners.

2. Gameplay would no doubt suffer. I'm not particularly a fan of the "that'll make this game too hard for the n00bs" argument; deal with it. Suck it up. That's what this game is about, sucking it up. You'll get swarmed, you'll get sniped, you'll get screwed over in every way. But still, even I agree an APC is a bit much, given the current armory Day Z features. The only thing that could reliably stop it would be the M136, and we all know how rare those are. Until homemade explosives become a feature, I'm somewhat agreeing that armor is OP. A quick disclaimer, though: a good marksman could probably take out the gunner on an M113. And after that, what's the worst they can do, splatter you? Go into the editor in ArmA and spawn yourself an M113. Tell me how hard you think this rolling brick is to dodge matador-style compared to certain other vehicles.

3. I would wildly prefer DIY vehicles over military AFVs. It's simply much more realistic. If it were up to me, my Day Z vehicles would turn into Mad Max jalopies with corrugated sheet metal, chicken wire, and all sorts of ridiculous armor plating. However, that capability is not in the game as of yet, obviously. Still, I think it would be worth the extra effort to design player-made improvised armor features rather than cop out and let them all use APCs. Not that I think a couple of APCs would be a bad thing; I just don't think they should be considered a substitute for these.

Well, there's my rant. Take it how you will. Overall, I don't think they'd be as destabilizing as some people say. They'd be fuel hogs, clearly, and they're also only as dangerous as their gun and their speed, which isn't as ridiculously overpowered as some of you are making it out to be. But, I'd like to see a few more features added before they're implemented, namely radios (to make them more useful in the bigger picture), IEDs and homemade explosives, to provide some kind of mid-level counter to these vehicles so that the only plausible anti-tank weapons aren't the ultrarare rocket launchers and the...controversial anti-materiél rifles. And finally, I'd like to also see real post-apocalyptic vehicles with fun bits of 2x4 and sheet metal on them more so than a full-on military APC.

Edited February 12, 2013 by FlashHawk4

[Quaby 93]

herp derp, the M113 is an APC, not a tank, and why would you find an antiquated american APC in post-apocalyptic Czech republic?

Edited February 12, 2013 by Quaby

[FlashHawk4 44]

herp derp, the M113 is an APC, not a tank, and why would you find an antiquated american APC in post-apocalyptic Czech republic?

At this point, I chose to abandon even considering this argument. But it's completely true, after all. Magazine not clip, APC not tank. It's like we're watching television newsreaders.

And also it would be more likely to find Warsaw Pact vehicles than NATO ones, even though the M113 has been sold to pretty much everyone.

And this is totally irrelevant, but I always kinda thought Chernarus was more like Georgia than the Czech Republic.

Even though...y'know...Bohemia Interactive...Czech company...yadda yadda...

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

Herp Derp, M113 is used by MANY military and law enforcement groups. In Asia, Europe, South America, The Middle East...

Exercise your education...

...and stick your high-horse right up your bumhole.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Chabowski

[iCentari 5]

First off, I apologize for the length. A neat little summary is avaliable at the bottom.

There are a number of reasons why the presence of armored vehicles in an event would be plausible. In terms of the real world, I'd more or less agree with this, for the following reasons:

1. Of course there will be armored vehicles lying about in the event of an apocalyptic, societal-breakdown-grade event like the one this game depicts. The military will obviously be sent out, and they won't be leaving their heavy equipment at home. APCs like the one pictured will most likely be used in roadblocks and quarantines, which, in conventional zombie lore, tend to get overrun. The soldiers may or may not get a chance to drive them away in the event of said overrun (multi-ton, massive-diesel-engine armored vehicles aren't quite instant ignition like the average sedan, after all). Others will be left ready at high alert on military bases. Obviously, they will be present.

2. Zombies do not have anti-tank/anti-aircraft capabilities. Why there are so many catastrophically-killed BMPs dotting the landscape is beyond me. Unless there was a full-blown civil war that coincided with societal collapse, there is no reason for there to be explosively-destroyed armored vehicles around. So, the military's armor will not be catastrophically killed. Mobility problems, like a broken tread or engine problems, will occur just like in any other military op. Crew kills might hypothetically occur, if the zombies get incredibly, incredibly lucky. Perhaps someone decided to pop the emergency escape hatch on the bottom of certain tank models to take a piss, as many tankers do. Perhaps then a conveniently placed zombie, irritated by that golden shower, proceeded to climb up into the belly of the beast. Perhaps the crew got out of the tank for a second, as obviously people have always done since the invention of the tank, and the zombies chased them off. Any way you think about it, the number of AFVs that get destroyed or rendered inoperable will be fewer than the number left idle and unattended.

3. It's not IMPOSSIBLE to learn how to drive an armored vehicle. For starters, you don't automatically die if you have no idea what you're doing, like flying a helicopter or jumbo jet. Many have steering wheels, and the rest use a lever-based approach that can be figured out in about half an hour. I believe the M113 is the latter. Maybe up to 75% of them will end up somewhere stupid, like in a basement, a ravine, or a pond while people try to figure the controls out. But the other 25% will be successfully figured out.

4. What most people don't quite consider is that even though the military command structure broke down, there will obviously still be soldiers. Soldiers are the ideal candidates for surviving a zombie apocalypse, provided they aren't personally given suicide missions, and just like how you and your neighbor might team up because you're friends, Private Jones and Private Frank would conceivably team up because they've spent the last two years side by side. And, if they were in an APC, then boom. 1, 2, and 3 are all solved already. There's a trained driver, and they don't have to get the vehicle secondhand from an abandoned fortification. So those guys will be roving the wastes, obviously.

Now the GAMEPLAY reasons why I think an APC might be beneficial.

1. Given the absence of DIY armored vehicles in ArmA, an APC would fill the niche of heavily-armored big-dog survivor vehicle. It would be useful for fielding rescue calls in conjunction with a radio communications system., or a search-and-destroy mission, or a combat medevac operation. It would also be an invaluable tool for aspiring law enforcers. When these wasteland marshal types receive a call reporting a hostile sniper in a bush somewhere, they would love to have an armored vehicle to let them roll up to the area without the risk of a sniper killing the driver from behind the windshield. And of course PvPers would love it too.

2. Obviously this is not something that would be avaliable on one's first day in Chernarus, nor even one's first week in Chernarus. It would be a long-term goal to strive towards, which this game is seriously lacking in my opinion. Part of the reason I think there is so much mindless PvPing is because people simply get bored; much like this Russian project I was involved with, an MMO variant of Fallout 2 called Fallout: Online, when all you give players are guns and bullets, that's what people go with. They look for the best guns and the best bullets, they find other people with the best guns and the best bullets, and they fight people. Clearly repairing an armored vehicle and keeping it fuelled (more on that later) will be a task that requires trade and cooperation with others. It's not something you can really accomplish while leading a solitary bandit lifestyle.

3. I want a tank.

Now, the reasons why I think this is a BAD idea:

1. Armored vehicles' fuel usage is measured in hundreds of liters, not individual liters or even dozens of liters. A five-gallon jerry can would hardly even whet an APC's appetite; they have gas tanks designed to hold between 250L to 1000L of fuel, depending on the model, and they use every drop of it in an extended operation. Most likely a patrol of Chernarus's coastal highway would take over 150L of fuel in an M113, and that's a lot of jerry cans. And I'm personally not a fan of introducing more jerry cans to quiet whiners.

2. Gameplay would no doubt suffer. I'm not particularly a fan of the "that'll make this game too hard for the n00bs" argument; deal with it. Suck it up. That's what this game is about, sucking it up. You'll get swarmed, you'll get sniped, you'll get screwed over in every way. But still, even I agree an APC is a bit much, given the current armory Day Z features. The only thing that could reliably stop it would be the M136, and we all know how rare those are. Until homemade explosives become a feature, I'm somewhat agreeing that armor is OP. A quick disclaimer, though: a good marksman could probably take out the gunner on an M113. And after that, what's the worst they can do, splatter you? Go into the editor in ArmA and spawn yourself an M113. Tell me how hard you think this rolling brick is to dodge matador-style compared to certain other vehicles.

3. I would wildly prefer DIY vehicles over military AFVs. It's simply much more realistic. If it were up to me, my Day Z vehicles would turn into Mad Max jalopies with corrugated sheet metal, chicken wire, and all sorts of ridiculous armor plating. However, that capability is not in the game as of yet, obviously. Still, I think it would be worth the extra effort to design player-made improvised armor features rather than cop out and let them all use APCs. Not that I think a couple of APCs would be a bad thing; I just don't think they should be considered a substitute for these.

Well, there's my rant. Take it how you will. Overall, I don't think they'd be as destabilizing as some people say. They'd be fuel hogs, clearly, and they're also only as dangerous as their gun and their speed, which isn't as ridiculously overpowered as some of you are making it out to be. But, I'd like to see a few more features added before they're implemented, namely radios (to make them more useful in the bigger picture), IEDs and homemade explosives, to provide some kind of mid-level counter to these vehicles so that the only plausible anti-tank weapons aren't the ultrarare rocket launchers and the...controversial anti-materiél rifles. And finally, I'd like to also see real post-apocalyptic vehicles with fun bits of 2x4 and sheet metal on them more so than a full-on military APC.

Everything you have written here is what i have been thinking is spot on.

[wolfsburg62 66]

No it doesn't.

[euphoria^ 8]

We hid a tank in our panthera server...once... lets just say it killed a full server when a guy found it.

[shadowleaper 22]

Why the hell are so many people obsessed with turning DayZ into a military shooter?

NEWSFLASH: You've already got one installed on your system, it's called ARMA 2!!!!

I couldn't agree more. Day Z is NOT a military shooter, it's a post apocalyptic world where everything has gone to s**t.

I do like the idea reinforced cars. From what Dean has mentioned we're looking at a Mad max type of vehicle restoration and use, so why not include expensive materials to make tankier cars! :D

Edited February 13, 2013 by shadowleaper

[com1 10]

I think the AS50 should be removed but M107 is okay, its damage should be lowered to not kill in one hit.

1 shot kills are so unrealistic.... they should remove headshots and give all survivors over 1 million blood so no one ever die and scared little bunnys like u will be statisfied.

[tiresomehoopla 37]

I personally don't think it needs any modification try both them in the editor, they can be damage by anything but obviously takes longer to destroy because its a tank, has Armour. Couple shots of an AS50 or M107 will take disable it.

This should put elektro snipers to some actual use.

[Milans 25]

You have my Beans, Mad Max for me though ....

[Steam_Power 42]

I Think DayZ Could use a Armored Vehicle, the M113 is perfect its not OP it actually considered a Light armored Vehicle so it can be Damaged by just about everything also it comes in two versions a gunner one and a ambulance. Perfect for rescuing friends or engaging enemy's endless uses.

M113_UN_EP1

M113Ambul_UN_EP1

No. Bad OP, BAD!

[fanim 0]

No, no and no again! This game is designed to survive, hiding and so on, the tank is bad, it's ridiculous! this is not a war to survive in a world of zombies. Sorry for my English

[-Gews- 7443]

1 shot kills are so unrealistic.... they should remove headshots and give all survivors over 1 million blood so no one ever die and scared little bunnys like u will be statisfied.

Yup, it REALLY ticks me off when people complain about a .50-fucking-BMG being a one-shot kill.

It's a .50-fucking-BMG!

'Scuse my language, I'm tired.

[Quaby 93]

Well, lets take the other form of the argument then...what would a "tank" add? With no M136, it would just be someone running around roflstomping everyone until a few people with huge guns found it and lit it up. Even with soft armor, the average bear would be pretty much useless against it. As of now, the average guy with a lee can do something effective against every vehicle, be it shooting the driver or hiding from helicopters. Being spotted by the M113 would pretty much be a death sentence, as it has a mounted gun as good as any you can carry. Unless the gun has to be open topped to shoot, but then they could just run the person over of some such silliness like that. And honestly dayz has too much military shit in it already. Wasteland is great and has tanks, so maybe you would like trying it out?