The TANK Thread

[hombrecz 832]

Dayz was never hard. The janky controls and broken zombies made it difficult. Once you overcome that it become easy. Epoch still has everything Dayz Vanilla has just more features to overcome, wouldn't that make it more difficult?

 

Oh yes Epoch was "really hard" and really providing "true" Dayz feeling with all those traders selling you guns, cars and all other stuff right?

 

I mean it was good it existed, but please, do not alter SA to anything like Epoch! That would be frikkin disaster.

Leave tanks, lazers and other stuff for once modding is allowed.

Then, by all means, create your own SA spin-off with unicorns shooting lazers from their bums, or whatever your heart desires.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Hombre

[Daemonkid 493]

If we are talking about tanks in general:

Useless steel coffins, no one use them anymore (too much easy to hit and they cant do anything against planes and infantry).

 

If we are talking about tanks in dayz: 

No... Just... No.

You're joking right? Tanks are still incredibly viable weapon platforms for standard warfare AND useful as a deterrent from hostile infantry. Just because they're vulnerable in urban combat doesn't diminish their effectiveness. Tanks are fucking intimidating.

[victusmortuus 1074]

Oh yes Epoch was "really hard" and really providing "true" Dayz feeling with all those traders selling you guns, cars and all other stuff right?

 

I mean it was good it existed, but please, do not alter SA to anything like Epoch! That would be frikkin disaster.

 

Base building is already coming. Traders will never be in the game. Don't be so pissy Jim.

[Deathlove 2286]

Base building is already coming. Traders will never be in the game. Don't be so pissy Jim.

A trader or two would be cool but they should sell more reasonable things like maybe food or aid nothing like guns and ammo or high powered military vehicles. Just survival stuff for living that doesn't involve ammo.

[gemellus 77]

Vodniks and Tigr please (not tanks but whatevs)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/GAZ-39371_-_VTTV-Omsk-2009_-02.jpg

http://www.madeinrussia.cz/photos/article/resized/146-709-gaz-tigr.jpg

[Deathlove 2286]

Vodniks and Tigr please (not tanks but whatevs)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/GAZ-39371_-_VTTV-Omsk-2009_-02.jpg

http://www.madeinrussia.cz/photos/article/resized/146-709-gaz-tigr.jpg

Did you see the tank in the french WW2 video i posted? Its more of a carrier rather than a heavy attacker unit. Lighter armor and smaller with no huge cannons from what i see.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

Aren't tanks doing like... 1 mile per gallon or less?

 

Thing is... tanks bring a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the game...

Edited May 11, 2014 by Lady Kyrah

[Deathlove 2286]

Aren't tanks doing like... 1 mile per galon or less?

If its more of a one man tank im sure it could do more but at greater expense or protection.

[Deathlove 2286]

People forget that tanks may be old but if your unprepared to deal with one you'd be like these police trying to stop it without anti tank weapons.

 

[UltimateGentleman 355]

As with helicopters I do not see the point.

 

This NOT a war game, why make it one? It's a survival game and as said if you have tanks you need to have rocket launchers.

Which every asshole will just camp with in Berenzino or wherever an annihilate anything that moves.

 

They make no sense to add, especially not with the lack of a destruction engine in the game this game is about realism so shooting at someone in a house and it not blowing the crap up is retarded.

 

 

Cars will be enough, they will be tanks in this game and I think they're all that should be added in the way of vehicles, except maybe motorbikes or bicycles.

Taking on a group of guys in a jeep or something would be hard enough as a fresh spawn don't give people tanks too god damn...

The coast would just be hell and the game would just be terrible, absolutely terrible.

[qww 287]

in this dayz world where people shoot eachother, if there are cars, it follows that their would be at least improvised armoured cars, im sure of that

Edited May 11, 2014 by qww

[Nesuma (DayZ) 108]

Cars will be enough, they will be tanks in this game and I think they're all that should be added in the way of vehicles, except maybe motorbikes or bicycles.

Taking on a group of guys in a jeep or something would be hard enough as a fresh spawn don't give people tanks too god damn...

The coast would just be hell and the game would just be terrible, absolutely terrible.

 

This game needs helicopters and ships but for your opinion, did you ever play the original dayzmod? Vehicles weren't something you saw near the coast. Atleast not driving less than 80 km/h hoping that no one stops them. Sure there were people with to much cars wasting some, but it was definitly worth it

 

 

 

All I have to say is: if you add in tanks, you have to add in satchel charges, IED, and RPG/LAW options for balance. 

 

Once you have done that, the game changes significantly.

 

All it takes is dying one time to some asshat with a rocket launcher while you're pinned down in a building, to effectively lose your shit on the forums... and imagine how many people will do just that. 

I found 1... 1! rocket launcher in hundreds of hours of dayz and I never ever saw a flying rocket or someone with the launcher, except the one time I found one and tried it...

[gibonez 3633]

in this dayz world where people shoot eachother, if there are cars, it follows that their would be at least improvised armoured cars, im sure of that

 

There is a world of difference between an armored car using makeshift parts and a tank or APC

[qww 287]

There is a world of difference between an armored car using makeshift parts and a tank or APC

did i say there wasnt?

[weedmasta 784]

Wow, I don't check the forum for a week and suddenly all these tank and helicopter threads. Wtf is going on, did everyone lose their minds?

[Deathlove 2286]

As with helicopters I do not see the point.

 

This NOT a war game, why make it one? It's a survival game and as said if you have tanks you need to have rocket launchers.

Which every asshole will just camp with in Berenzino or wherever an annihilate anything that moves.

 

They make no sense to add, especially not with the lack of a destruction engine in the game this game is about realism so shooting at someone in a house and it not blowing the crap up is retarded.

 

 

Cars will be enough, they will be tanks in this game and I think they're all that should be added in the way of vehicles, except maybe motorbikes or bicycles.

Taking on a group of guys in a jeep or something would be hard enough as a fresh spawn don't give people tanks too god damn...

The coast would just be hell and the game would just be terrible, absolutely terrible.

You could add in tank traps instead of rocket launchers lol.

[bfisher 561]

Personally I'm not against anything that one might reasonably find in a post-Soviet state, so long as there is some element of balance.  So to have a tank, much like IRL, it would use a shit ton of fuel, which should be rare.  It would require spare parts, many of which might not be available.  Especially if you throw a track driving over the wrong terrain, which is easy to do.  Also, tank parts are heavy.  So maybe you need to also find a wrecker or tow truck or something with a wench or a crane on it, and get THAT working, so you swap out that engine or fix that track.

 

And at the end of the day, all that work might be ruined by someone placing a sticky bomb on the track or dropping a hand grenade down the barrel.

 

The only problem I have with tanks, armored fighting vehicles and "technicals" is that if you have them, you probably have weapons for them.  You also need weapons to counter those vehicles.  So that means a lot more .50cal machineguns, rocket launchers, IEDs, satchel charges, grenades, RPGs, Claymores, anti-material rifles and so on circulating through the map,  

[Buffaloe 87]

I really like the idea of the improvised armored cars. Actual tanks don't feel right to me though, although it'd probably make at least just as much sense as helis.

[gibonez 3633]

Wow, I don't check the forum for a week and suddenly all these tank and helicopter threads. Wtf is going on, did everyone lose their minds?

 

Been playing breaking point huh ? thought I saw your name in the server list yesterday.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Personally I'm not against anything that one might reasonably find in a post-Soviet state, so long as there is some element of balance.  So to have a tank, much like IRL, it would use a shit ton of fuel, which should be rare.  It would require spare parts, many of which might not be available.  Especially if you throw a track driving over the wrong terrain, which is easy to do.  Also, tank parts are heavy.  So maybe you need to also find a wrecker or tow truck or something with a wench or a crane on it, and get THAT working, so you swap out that engine or fix that track.

 

And at the end of the day, all that work might be ruined by someone placing a sticky bomb on the track or dropping a hand grenade down the barrel.

 

The only problem I have with tanks, armored fighting vehicles and "technicals" is that if you have them, you probably have weapons for them.  You also need weapons to counter those vehicles.  So that means a lot more .50cal machineguns, rocket launchers, IEDs, satchel charges, grenades, RPGs, Claymores, anti-material rifles and so on circulating through the map,  

Grenades, .50 caliber machine guns, claymores, anti-materiel rifles, and most IEDs are generally ineffective against MBTs. Lighter APCs/IFVs can take some damage from those but very little.

I don't see the point of having any tanks/APCs/IFVs in the game. They simply require too much to operate and also require a very large crew who needs experience, in addition to adding little to the game. Helicopters are definitely similar to operate but they add much more to the game and can be taken down without immense firepower.

 

----

 

I actually do want to see an RPG-7, RPG-2 and/or M-72 LAW, so long as rockets took up a lot of space and were incredibly hard to find. Also, the LAW can only be fired once, so if you miss or screw up then you've just wasted a huge asset. The RPG-7 & RPG-2 are reusable but they have much more tendency to fly off course.

IEDs, molotovs & hand grenades are a must, at least for me.

[weedmasta 784]

Been playing breaking point huh ? thought I saw your name in the server list yesterday.

 

Yup :)

[Deathlove 2286]

Grenades, .50 caliber machine guns, claymores, anti-materiel rifles, and most IEDs are generally ineffective against MBTs. Lighter APCs/IFVs can take some damage from those but very little.

I don't see the point of having any tanks/APCs/IFVs in the game. They simply require too much to operate and also require a very large crew who needs experience, in addition to adding little to the game. Helicopters are definitely similar to operate but they add much more to the game and can be taken down without immense firepower.

 

----

 

I actually do want to see an RPG-7, RPG-2 and/or M-72 LAW, so long as rockets took up a lot of space and were incredibly hard to find. Also, the LAW can only be fired once, so if you miss or screw up then you've just wasted a huge asset. The RPG-7 & RPG-2 are reusable but they have much more tendency to fly off course.

IEDs, molotovs & hand grenades are a must, at least for me.

This Japanese tank does not require a large crew to operate although they were probably very cramped inside of it.

 

[qww 287]

anyway, apart from (improvised maybe) armored car, what i would imagine more realistic would maybe be a stationary tank, too damaged to move, at a base, that could be loaded with shells, that were of course rare, but wouldnt have 360 view due to cover or a wall or whatever, tank would be 2 man, 1 gunner 1 loader, no driver obviously.

[Deathlove 2286]

anyway, apart from (improvised maybe) armored car, what i would imagine more realistic would maybe be a stationary tank, too damaged to move, at a base, that could be loaded with shells, that were of course rare, but wouldnt have 360 view due to cover or a wall or whatever, tank would be 2 man, 1 gunner 1 loader, no driver obviously.

OR even better a way to upgrade a tractor into an armored vehicle like what they did with the Bob Semple Tank

 

 

First they would need to implement digging vehicles in game. Bulldozers and such like that.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Deathlove

[Chaingunfighter 917]

This Japanese tank does not require a large crew to operate although they were probably very cramped inside of it.

You rarely see tanks like that even functioning today. Of all the German Panzer IVs ever built, only around 4 or so (last time I checked) are known to still be running, and they built thousands of them.  I'm not sure too many Type 97s or Type 99s are still running, either.

Regardless, my whole point was just that they don't add anything to the game in comparison to helicopters or planes which still require similar skill & power to operate but do make a difference in the end.

I'd rather have a C-47 or Boeing 737 than a T-72, even though the T-72 clearly makes more sense in terms of realism. (The plane that crashed into the international hotel appears to be a C-47 but I could be wrong)

 

The Chernarussian military operated T-72s, BMP-2s, BVP-2s & BRDM-2s before the outbreak (as we can see around the map in Chernarus+), so if they had to add something it would best be one of those. A BRDM-2 wouldn't be too awful in my mind, especially because unarmed variants of them exist and they only have light armor.