Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

    while seeding the server today, I decided to find out exactly how many standard-issue AT weapon hits it really takes to destroy an M-COM station in rush. Note that these are direct hits from close range(I was just barely outside of the blast radius) with direct hits only.

    AT4: 10 direct hits
    CG: 15 direct hits
    RPG7: 12 direct hits
    T-90 MBT: 12 direct hits
    M1A2 w/ Hardened Warheads perk: 10
    M203: 16
    Stationary AT: 6

    I'm currently assuming the M1A2's main gun is equivalent to the T-90's, and I will post the APC statistics once I have them, with a seperate number for the main gun and the Hellfire secondary fire. Note that M203 hits need to be direct hits, as splash damage does nothing.

    Feel free if there are any major ones I've missed other than C-4(which I believe is 12 sticks).
    Last edited by SandTrout; 06-24-2010, 04:52 PM.
    sigpic

  • #2
    Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

    The APC, barring any massive screwups on my part again (from the other thread), should take roughly 100 main cannon direct hits (I think they fire 5 or 6 rounds per reload) and the Hellfire should take around 9 hits. The Anti-Air APC grenades deal the same damage as a regular APC cannon. It's not so much that the APC cannon doesn't do splash damage, it's just that it's only 40 damage that dissipates over 2.5 to 5 meters, which pretty much means that the inherent inaccuracy of the cannon means a miss will do no damage. And yes, the Abrams and T-90 deal the same damage. Also, C4 is indeed 12 sticks.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

      Was this all with warheads perk or without?

      Does the damage decrease with distance?


      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." -Plato
      "Whiskey, yet again, will have my babies." -TheSkudDestroyer


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

        Originally posted by BlindGamer View Post

        Does the damage decrease with distance?
        No, tested on arica first stage with the tank, needed the same amount of hits from the spawn as from 3 feet from the mcom..
        Nubhar

        - In the process, I have discovered that I can make iron bolts with my butt****.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

          Only "bullets" lose damage with distance, although the M16A2 and the UAV's alternate fire have a constant damage regardless of distance (14.3/bullet for M16A2, 10/bullet for UAV). "Projectiles" do not. Basically, "projectiles" have both ballistic and explosive damage, of which only their explosive damage decreases over distance from the explosion's origin.

          All Warhead Specialization does is multiply damage dealt by 1.25x. So if the generated numbers are with Warhead Specialization and you want to find the number of hits without Warhead, multiply the number of hits by 1.25. For the reverse, multiply by 0.8. Reload Specialization reduces reload time by a factor of 0.8, so it, technically speaking, should take roughly the same amount of time.

          Based on SandTrout's numbers for the Abrams and T-90, though, I'm thinking the MCOM's armor is described functionally identical to a tank's, since the numbers, as expected, should be half that high. Tank cannon versus tank armor has a different series of modifiers that result in damage dealt, so it's a little less clear on how to exactly describe the MCOM's health and damage multiplication. Eh.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

            Just would like to bump this due to a more recent trend i have been seeing when i have been playing. I feel that this is a real shoddy tactic that TG'ers are using. Yes the game allows you to do it, but i feel that when the defending team is stoping the attacking team b/c the attacking team is not using tactics and resorts to this....... i feel ashamed. You can flame me if you want to but i feel this is not TG!!!!






            "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population....Tactical Gamer is not mainstream. We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers" ~ Apophis

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

              hmm.. I think it can be frustrating when they destroys the mcoms with rockets from across the map.. But to say it's not an tactic or even a shoddy tactic? Do you really think running like a crazy chipmunk into the enemy bullets to maybe get to the mcom and arm it is a good tactic?

              Heck to successfully destroy the mcom with AT4's you need a someone with rockets, a medic to revive and someone to give him ammo and if you want a golden star on your grade you should have a recon to throw balls so you can see if someone is trying to sneak up on you.

              To get to the mcom with the mad-rush method you need, to run. (Yeah I know, You really need smoke recon balls and someone that actually revives to be succesfull. But since the revives are rare the smoke never gets in time out and the balls.. Well people are actually starting to throw recon balls now:D)

              No this is not a very constructive response but you can't just say THIS IS NOT TG! and expect a rewarding discussion..

              Why do you think this is not TG? is it b/c it's harder for you to defend against? Do you think they are lazy? Are you lazy and don't want to move up?
              Nubhar

              - In the process, I have discovered that I can make iron bolts with my butt****.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

                Originally posted by Jack Bauer View Post
                Just would like to bump this due to a more recent trend i have been seeing when i have been playing. I feel that this is a real shoddy tactic that TG'ers are using. Yes the game allows you to do it, but i feel that when the defending team is stoping the attacking team b/c the attacking team is not using tactics and resorts to this....... i feel ashamed. You can flame me if you want to but i feel this is not TG!!!!
                So,,, whats so "not TG" about it.

                I deserve a ribbon for Mortar Specialist

                Artillery conquers and infantry occupies.
                J.F.C. Fuller

                Proud to have been a member of the 5th, 71st and my beloved 19th

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

                  i agree that i am not a regular that plays all the time and i come froma different game, but i still feel tactics are not used. Well not logical tactics, squads are not really thought out and its like pulling teeth to get squad cohesion, again all my opinions. I really do not want to get into a pissing contest, i just want to voice my opinion and say that i feel that things can be really worked on, starting with what i said above....thats all.

                  Trust me.....this is not my game, but i still feel that tactics should still be used that are not and it still really feels like selfish play at times.....






                  "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population....Tactical Gamer is not mainstream. We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers" ~ Apophis

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

                    My opinion on AT'ing the M-COM:

                    I generally try to push up and plant on the M-COM, as it gives me a "rush" and it takes a bit of skill, depending on what the defending team is doing. If most of the defenders are sitting in the back and sniping, I will rush and plant. But, if the defenders are just completely shutting down the attackers rush, I have absolutely no problem AT'ing the M-COM from a distance or attempting to bring the building down from a distance.

                    Jack, I think it's just a matter of wrapping your mind around the very different tactics and strategies that are used in BC2. I don't think AT'ing the M-COM is cheap, it's a counter to a very strong and well placed defense. If you are defending and start seeing AT rockets flying towards the M-COM, ask your sniper to take care of the offending attacker. If there are no snipers, switch class and own the punk thats blowing up your M-COM. :icon6:

                    As far as there not being much team cohesion, I think that is a product of the lack of VoIP. If/when EA/DICE fixes that, I think the game will change for the better.

                    sigpic


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

                      i kinda think that the coms are alright on TS, always could be better, but im talking about squads working on a common goal, setting up good defences to bleed their tickets, using kits that really help the team... providing some cover with smoke...Team tactics..... shouldnt be that much different than the other games here, like COD4, CSS, or any thing else,

                      Good points though MK, i do see where your coming from






                      "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population....Tactical Gamer is not mainstream. We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers" ~ Apophis

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

                        As I have learned through playing on TG servers; You can not be behind, beside or on top of the MCOM. You MUST be pushing in front of it! In doing this you can easily put a stop to 90% of all rocket spam on the MCOMs. It also does a good job at keeping the C4 far and away as well. Heck, in doing this C4 is even more of a hassle than AT, because it is very easy to be sneaky and come up on a MCOM from behind to C4 it. Where as if you try to AT it from someplace 'hidden' in the rear, you get that nice little smoke line giving away your position.

                        TL;DR - I can see how AT on the MCOM could be seen as un-TG vs. non-TG players. However, it really should be a non-issue when playing against another TG team.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

                          I like Jack's point of view. The biggest issue that you run into is when there are roughly 4-6 people pushing the MCOM and the rest of your team is sniping or sitting in the back of the base. You have 4-6 people going head to head against 16 defending players who have a terrain advantage. Regardless of how much smoke and tactics you use, you will not defeat those 16 enemy players. AT's are a very viable option here since you will be sitting back with the rest of your team and hopefully live longer than 10 seconds.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

                            good point Tllyx but when you sit back at distance and shoot crap at it dont you put your teammates that are trying to trigger the mcom while you spam, yes spam AT at it??

                            I guess whet im trying to do is have people start thinking instead of just spamming..... great points by all though!






                            "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population....Tactical Gamer is not mainstream. We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers" ~ Apophis

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Destroying M-COMs W/ AT

                              While I don't agree with Jack's opinion, I do think it might be interesting to play rush while only arming the M-COM rather than blowing it up. I have an idea in my head of some bad parts that would develop, but I'd hope that they could be avoided through restraint on the attacking team. It would be interesting if it was completely impossible to attack. Anyone else interested?
                              |TG-12th| Namebot

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X