Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...

**MarthaHyer** · 11-04-2008, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by Smachin007

I have never seen anyone in a tank lose to an APC

ME !! ME !! ME !!

It can be done but it takes GREAT skill youg padawan

**Photometric** · 11-04-2008, 08:45 AM

OOOoooo....

Details, please. What is the strategy without infantry popping out or outsmarting people to drive off of a ditch. A classic battle of apc vs tank.

**pred011586** · 11-04-2008, 11:45 AM

Run circles around the tank consistantly EMPing it until the driver who's most likely an engineer hops out to get a Pilum shot off at you since he can't aim the tank at you, then kill the driver?

**experiment626** · 11-04-2008, 11:55 AM

RULE #1 IF YOU GET IN ARMOR OF ANY KIND, YOU DIE IN THE ARMOR. NEVER EVER GET OUT...I will be waiting

**Uranium - 235** · 11-04-2008, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Smachin007

Come on guys, we are talking about machines here that cost millions of dollars to produce. Who in there right mind would see ramming a machine that is worth millions of dollars into another as a "legit" strategy. The projectiles that are shot out of the tanks give it the capability to stay at a distance and make the shots. I see no need for this discussion at all.

So you're saying that you, as a tank commander, would rather subject your crew to the damage an armor-piercing shell would cause versus scratching up the front of your paint job to force an enemy tank into a situation where you can easily destroy it?

LOL.

Not only would this be the reality of a wedge-shaped tank running into and UNDER a hover-design tank, but the game thinks so too - the act of the wedge maneuver does extremely little damage to both tanks. The reason you do it is to throw off the enemy tank's aim, exposing its soft underbelly for you to demolish.

Originally Posted by Photometric

Follow this logic for a second...when have you EVER heard or saw of an enemy tank coming along side an enemy tank to push it out of the way in WW2 which was the last war that used tanks so prolifically?

Russians didn't field hover tanks in WW2. But if you want to get technical, in every war, soldiers have found ways to use their weapons in unconventional ways. Guess what, back in the day, it was considered 'cheating' if your forces didn't line up and take turns shooting. Some guy wrote an entire book on ways of fighting that were unknown or unpopular, but were brutally effective. Maybe you've heard of it?

Did you know that 'sticky grenades' in WW2 were made of SOCKS coated in grease?

RE: the admins - nobody's said anything about 'Tank ramming is okay when ramming PAC tanks as EU only, but only then from the front. And you can't have started the ram maneuver at over 100 yards away. Also it can only be Wednesday'. No ramming in air / FAVs. I'm not really sure on the FAV thing because frankly I've never actually been HURT by an FAV ram when I'm in any kind of armor at all - they generally just blow up. It's extremely obvious when someone performs either of these things. I don't see the job becoming any harder, and if people really wanted to find loopholes, that's why you have the "Anti-***otry rule".

**Damonte** · 11-04-2008, 01:47 PM

Must Damonte repeat himself again?

This is mighty fine discussion, but if anyone wants the admins to consider any rule change, they must approach the admins through the appropriate channels with a convincing argument.

**Guardianx11x** · 11-04-2008, 02:24 PM

Just a few quick points:

1) Arguing this based on realism war tactics is absolutely ridiculous. The 2142 engine is far from a simulating real world physics; also if we went for "realism" Jihad Jeeps would be legal...at least for PAC.

2) Killing armor via ramming with the APC is easy if you know when and at what angle to do it. The reason my many/most of you haven't seen it is because many/most of you don't know how to do it properly. Take Reaps word who has seen me do it multiple times, or Readers word who has been the victim of it just a few weeks ago in a walker.

**Catman1975** · 11-04-2008, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Uranium - 235

Did you know that 'sticky grenades' in WW2 were made of SOCKS coated in grease?

Really, if I coat my socks (sorry SOCKS) in grease they will explode like a grenade?

**rage4order** · 11-04-2008, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Catman1975

Really, if I coat my socks (sorry SOCKS) in grease they will explode like a grenade?

Only on Wednesday's.

**Photometric** · 11-04-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Uranium - 235

Russians didn't field hover tanks in WW2. But if you want to get technical, in every war, soldiers have found ways to use their weapons in unconventional ways. Guess what, back in the day, it was considered 'cheating' if your forces didn't line up and take turns shooting. Some guy wrote an entire book on ways of fighting that were unknown or unpopular, but were brutally effective. Maybe you've heard of it?

Uranium,

The purpose of TG is to provide as close as possible a real world scenario within a game engine. I asked for a response to a scenario and no one hasn't been able to explain how an apc can kill a tank without infantry support. So using an apc as a weapon against a tank will not work to destroy it but contain it. In my mind then using the apc to ram the tank to destroy it is utilizing a game mechanic to exploit real world scenarios and shouldn't be allowed. That is why I continue to oppose this change of rules.

In addition, I also would appreciate it if you mind your tone or take it to another server. Your response is dripping with unwarrented sarcasm and borders on a personal attack. Respect your peers, please.

**Photometric** · 11-04-2008, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

Just a few quick points:

1) Arguing this based on realism war tactics is absolutely ridiculous. The 2142 engine is far from a simulating real world physics; also if we went for "realism" Jihad Jeeps would be legal...at least for PAC.

2) Killing armor via ramming with the APC is easy if you know when and at what angle to do it. The reason my many/most of you haven't seen it is because many/most of you don't know how to do it properly. Take Reaps word who has seen me do it multiple times, or Readers word who has been the victim of it just a few weeks ago in a walker.

Now, while we ignore the flagrant ignoring of the no ramming rule, the argument regarding realism is the fact that in truth an apc wouldn't be able to ram a tank and destroy it today or in the future. The manufacturers wouldn't produce a tank like that or they wouldn't be the manufacturing the tank for very long.

**Lorax74** · 11-04-2008, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

2) Killing armor via ramming with the APC is easy if you know when and at what angle to do it. The reason my many/most of you haven't seen it is because many/most of you don't know how to do it properly. Take Reaps word who has seen me do it multiple times, or Readers word who has been the victim of it just a few weeks ago in a walker.

On our server?

**Guardianx11x** · 11-04-2008, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Photometric

Uranium,

The purpose of TG is to provide as close as possible a real world scenario within a game engine. I asked for a response to a scenario and no one hasn't been able to explain how an apc can kill a tank without infantry support. So using an apc as a weapon against a tank will not work to destroy it but contain it. In my mind then using the apc to ram the tank to destroy it is utilizing a game mechanic to exploit real world scenarios and shouldn't be allowed. That is why I continue to oppose this change of rules.

In addition, I also would appreciate it if you mind your tone or take it to another server. Your response is dripping with unwarrented sarcasm and borders on a personal attack. Respect your peers, please.

Prepare to be dazzled. The PAC APC is shaped like a boat, if you ram it correctly into the EU tank it will ride up on top and the tank will be insta-killed. Photo, the reason for this is because in the year 2142 the bottom of PAC APCs is coated with dense antimatter plating, it is not a gaming engine flaw, but a design feature. This antimatter technology is based around the same principles as the shield technology but because it is not subjected to photon bombardment (direct sunlight) it is sustainable.

The real world argument is ridiculous and clouds the issue of game balance/intent. This things should be decided on what was intended by the game engine and developers as well as what the admins think they can deal with in terms of policing.

**Mordona** · 11-04-2008, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

Just a few quick points:

1) Arguing this based on realism war tactics is absolutely ridiculous. The 2142 engine is far from a simulating real world physics; also if we went for "realism" Jihad Jeeps would be legal...at least for PAC.

No its not and we take this into account what we believe would be realistic based on the 2142 saga and current military tactics. Now I will say it's not the primary canidate for judgement on rules, but it still is a factor.

Uranium's arugment is changing a ruling based on what we believe real tactics would be based on history and current day tactics and then theorising what furture tactics would be. We as admins already placed this case and argument and took this into consideration. But Uranium and others here failed to see the other aspects that we as admins must consider in our process of passing or changing a rule. The point is very valid, and this is a great decussion on what would happen, but I need to be clear that this debate will not change the rule.

**Guardianx11x** · 11-04-2008, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax74

On our server?

Yes, as it turns out the EU APC is the daddy-mac in terms of strength of ground vehicles. You can bully everyone else around.

It went a little something like this:

Belgrade, I'm driving the EU APC on the main road. Reader is driving a walker on the main road attacking outside playground. I see the rail go hot, Reader being the smart cookie he is pops his shields and moves to get out of there. Reader is already at about half health. So I decided to use the APC to immobilize him. Simple tactic, I popped the shields, lined his walked up between myself and a support for the monorail, EMPed him, then came barreling in the pinch him between us giving the rail enough time to finish the job. As it turns out...I didn't need to help of the rail because he well... he exploded.

I've also used the APC to push PAC tanks into water on Sidi by military outpost. I submit that given the options of being killed or using inherent weakness of a hover tanks and the inherent strength of the APC in the REAL WORLD a clever APC driver would do the same.

Thread Tools

Display