VCO- vehicle combat overhaul

[granite heron]

We need VCO and to implement penetration system not health so that way u can knock out optics , crew ect ect and overhauilng movement so tank doesnt get stuck on random log or rocks also for LAT to be acctualy useful in destroying light armour because with health system it feels so arcade and usless because you cant kill a logi with one rocket or mtlb which would be possible in real life , tank withstanding 4 to 5 ap shots its kinda unreal you are dead with one or you keep going . Its much needed change and I beg you guys to add it game would be so much better and AT would acctualy be vaible as well as Tank because realistcly small warheads cant rlly pen tank only tandem shaped charges @

[autumn canopy]

Oneshot kills and crew kills would basically kill vehicle gameplay completely. It would be too frustrating and lead to unauthentic use of armor, and less cooperation between infantry and vehicles.

[barren garnet]

yet, nowadays, i see less coorporation aready

since vehicle are too op to need inf protection

they hang around and get at least 50 free kill without any issue

[autumn canopy]

This is for the most part skill issue of the infantry, if we talk about tracked vehicles.

[barren garnet]

yea, u mean 90% of the player has skill issue

lower LAT damage and internal damage are brought intentionally in 5.0

since back in time LAT are OP to the vehicle, it was fast and accurate

[autumn canopy]

Idk what you mean, but AT damage and vic damage system has not changed since the alpha phase of the game.

[barren garnet]

when u start playing?

which year?

[autumn canopy]

2016

Alpha 7

[barren garnet]

then u should know u could do M kill and light the ammo rank simutaneously

back in that days

because of LAT was soo powerful like this, and it deploys instantly before ICO

that is why we need VCO

it will complete SQUAD as a hole

[autumn canopy]

Which game version do you refer to? There were only Humvees and trucks in Alpha 7

[barren garnet]

all version before 4.3

are u playing in the recent 3 yr?

[autumn canopy]

What is your point here? The screenshot mentiones an issue that only affected the RKG-3 anti tank grenades, not LATs/HATs.

The behavior of LATs was not changed since the alpha versions.

[barren garnet]

yes, the LAT does not change, but the vehicle does

there is a separation in center which divide enging and ammo rank

and the damage does decreased

[autumn canopy]

This wall is there since Alpha 13 or 14, because back then 90% of vehicle fights ended with both vehicles engined, because almost all shots went through the engine. It is a necessary addition to prevent that.

[barren garnet]

not anymore, since it greatly affect the effectiveness of inf combat

back then, LAT has no sway

[autumn canopy]

This wall does not exist because of infantry AT.

[barren garnet]

but if does affect the effectiveness of Inf AT

[autumn canopy]

No?

[barren garnet]

yes, we used to hit both

and M kill was much easier

[autumn canopy]

This was never possible, because the trace distance of LATs is 1.4 meters anyway. LAT cannot hit both components on most vehicles, and they never could.

[barren garnet]

from back, yes

and in real life, most IVF has their engine in frount

unlike the game

[autumn canopy]

The engines in the game are in the same locations than on the real vehicles.

[barren garnet]

this also buff inf, since both would disabled

and encourage inf to do the rest

[autumn canopy]

No, it would make vic gameplay significantly worse. There is no reason to reintroduce a known issues for no reason.

[barren garnet]

yea, the gameplay are now for ICO

if u'd cancel ICO, these balence are good

[autumn canopy]

Or just reduce the AT sway?

Or, just increase damage against wheeled APCs

Or, wait till infantry players learn to play less braindead

[barren garnet]

like 2 shot/kill

[barren garnet]

u'd know most server run on new payers

player

yet vehicle are taken mostly by skilled ones

[autumn canopy]

So yeah skilled players should defead less skilled players, otherwise it would be unfair and there would be no reason to get better. I agree that AT sway is a little bit too much, but most players die to vics because have zero situational awareness or try to peak vics from the most obvious angles, and this should be punished.

[vernal crystal]

AT4 & other LAT damage nerfs happened sometime in 2021 or maybe 2022, don't remember exactly. But there was definitely a nerf.

[autumn canopy]

Not really.

[barren garnet]

but damage nerf acturally encourage vics to take unrealistic positions.

which has overly depress the inf

[autumn canopy]

Only the AT4 damage was reduced to be identical to other LATs at some point.

[autumn canopy]

There. Was. No. Damage. Nerf.

[vernal crystal]

I think it also coincided with some AT hitreg issues that caused an overall drop in AT effectiveness

[barren garnet]

damage is not nerf directly

[barren garnet]

also, damage should be increased as a new balence of VCO

otherwise, it's better to add crew kill and crew sway, dizzyness and more compartment kill

like what warthunder recently did

the IVF is not hole empty inside

in auto loader, the drive system, the Fire control system

[autumn canopy]

The War Thunder damage system would not work in Squad

[barren garnet]

yea

that is why i ask for damage

that is the only way

u get it

this game does not have F kill

and M kill is not complete

gun function all the time, and ammo rank function all the time

it anyway loads

[worthy violet]

As a full time armor player, it’s balanced right now

Getting 50 kills isn’t as easy as some think

It might seem unrealistic but it’s definitely balanced

Only way it’s possible to drop 50 is if you have an experienced crew with proper driver/gunner chemistry because otherwise you get overwhelmed with infantry

IFV’s can be killed by hull damage with one hat and one lat shot

And one lat shot to track an ifv is enough to guarantee a kill

[barren garnet]

the idea of balancing is for the environment, squad payer average skill are nolonger as good as before

although it's sad to face, pre-2018 age are gone, new payers are not perperally trained where to hit tank, and how to aim with the sight.

some even has trobble with recognition of enermy

that's current situation, any why old system not working

to make ICO final goal-> coorporation in team and help new player, we'd at least create an environment with some positive feedback

[barren garnet]

some player (like me) got a way around by having 2 account, and got both gunner and driver with no problem. pretty much like WT realistic mode

and i personally got at least 60+ inf per round easily

some map, like al- brash, could be 100+ kill

[barren garnet]

sth like this

[drifting trench]

It is not coop between inf and mech now, why REALISTIC inplementation of vehicles could be more frustated while the inf gameplay cycle try to be simulative?

[autumn canopy]

I do not understand the question.

[drifting trench]

You said, that the realistic vehiche gameplay (w crew and mods damage) will ruin the game and it would be so hard to cooperate mech and inf. But the thing is, that is no cooperation beetween mech and inf already, so why VCO should be ruin it?

[barren garnet]

he just trying to avoid VCO

[autumn canopy]

If there is no cooperation now, then this is because the vic crew chooses to do so, not because it is not viable.

[woven quarry]

Just no, overhauling movement yes but the rest is awful. The LAT is not to kill light armour or any armour, its to defend your squad against armour. As LAT it is your job to immobilize armour or scare it away so it cant do harm and not to really kill it. it does not matter if something is "unreal" its a video game it should not be real because it would not be fun then. The AT role is basically one of the most viable role ingame as it has an easy job and it can do it well almost as easy as the medic

[woven quarry]

There is no real lack of cooperation, only if the INF plays like idiots and block the vehicles.

[balmy dew]

Maybe not doing one shots, but putting more models and diferenciate armor

Something alike war thunder but keeping the squad style

[barren garnet]

we certainty want this but without any competition in market niche, offworld will not bother themself to do all these extra work

[balmy dew]

:(

[barren garnet]

sad truth..hum

[autumn canopy]

LATs should be perfectly able to neutralize BTRs without the need of a HAT. Currently it takes two LATs and a rifleman with full ammobag to kill a BTR, which is a joke. As a result the wheeled APC/IFV meta is to perform hit and run attacks against inf, which is unauthentic. Those wheeled APCs are also more survivable than IFVs, which makes little sense.

[woven quarry]

Its not a joke, its intended, LATs are not vehicle killers, they're job is to defend the squad from Vehicles and not to destroy them. It does not matter if a meta is "unauthentic" to you, its a meta that works.

[autumn canopy]

This is your opinion, not a fact. This philosophy is based on pre ICO AT-gameplay and comes from a time where those vehicles were the strongest vehicles and fulfilled the same function as tanks do now.

[autumn canopy]

Just because the meta "works" (this is what meta means), it does not mean that this meta is intended or "good".

[barren garnet]

for pre ICO yes, your meta works, since LAT can launch their rocket to the track 80% of the time.

[barren garnet]

but after ICO, NO, having 7-8 second standing still and wait aim to stablize make it not feasible to hit accurately to track, and sometimes not even able to hit the vehicle at all

we'd encourage IVF to get hit, and get repair rather than taking multiple shot like a tank

[granite heron]

Do you think Tanks in real life have Hull health like I am tired of playing Russian tanks against abrams even tho I first shoot and pen him his reload speed is almost 2 seconds faster than mine and outgunning me almost every time not to mention turret rotation and armour having penetration system would be great its funny how AP round does less dmg than HAT round AP dmg is arround 750 ish while HAT is almost double even tho some tanks have ERA which can significantly reduce its penetration and performance

[loud monolith]

AP damage is 800 and you two shot tank racks.

And ERA doesn't do anything.

[autumn canopy]

Therefor all conventional tanks should have the same reload rate imo.

[loud monolith]

No...

They basically do atm, they are all 8 seconds but the Abrams is faster.

They should be more varied with maybe Challenger being the quickest.

[autumn canopy]

Of course hit points are not realistic either, but this is a seperate topic.

[loud monolith]

t-72, t-90 and ZTZ with 7.1 second reloads.

[autumn canopy]

Giving MBTs randomly choosen reload rates only complicates balancing, the abrams shold get 7.5 seconds like the other conventional MBTs.

[loud monolith]

Let us just make them all the same speed with the same armour then.

Same sized racks, same ammo load.

[autumn canopy]

You dont get the point, they all have the same reload rate at the moment, except the Abrams which is faster for some reason, while also having top stats in other areas and no relevant disadvantage.

[loud monolith]

So why not give them varied reloads so the tanks have more distinct upsides and downsides?

You make them all 8 seconds and Abrams is still the best.

[autumn canopy]

Because those stats do not matter in a 1vs1 fight, where the Abrams simply outdamages other MBTs for no good reason.

[loud monolith]

What are you on about.

[autumn canopy]

If both tanks fight at equal terms, the M1 always wins, because it does more DPS.

If one of them got to the fight 20 seconds faster because of the mobility advantage, this is nice to have, but does not matter at this moment.

[loud monolith]

A tank's armour and mobility matters in a 1v1. If you can't reverse (T-72, T-90) then you can't play corners or mounds as well. Same goes for the rest. Abrams wins those 1v1s also because it gets better positions, has a harder to hit rack and can react quicker with the turret.

It's not a pure slug-fight and if it ends up that way you've both made mistakes.

[autumn canopy]

The difference is that those values like speed are not arbitrary chosen. Changing those lead to unauthentic vehicles, e.g. a T-72 going 50 kmh backwards. Armor levels are already balanced in a way so that all MBTs have roughly the same weak spots. Reload rate on the other hand is just randomly determined at the moment, and as reload rate, or better say the time between two shots is not a fixed number, it is better to give all MBTs the same rate, especially to nerf the Abrams as it is already too strong.

[loud monolith]

The reload rate can be authentic, so why not also make it so?

[autumn canopy]

No, becaus those are dynamic vaues. They depend on a lot of circumstances.

[loud monolith]

Which aren't modelled in game so why not give an average of the authentic values? We're not modelling the susceptibility of ammo/modules on the tanks. They all die in the same number of hits but the shapes of the modules are authentically based.

[autumn canopy]

Because it would lead to worse balancing, when all NATO tanks out-DPS the already weak T-tanks

[loud monolith]

A 7.1 second reload wouldn't be out done by much compared to the average reload of a western MBT, not all faction's tanks need to be indentical or close in power.

You can just choose numbers which are both plausible and purposeful. The Challenger, from it's ready rack (not modelled in game obviously) can achieve a very high rate of fire, this would make up for it's poor armour and mobility in game. The Leopard can be a little more than that and the Abrams a bit more than that with the slowest conventional tanks being the T-72/T-90 because the Russians (of both factions) have the strongest IFVs (also against tanks).

[autumn canopy]

But where is the purpose in giving the M1 a faster reload than the other tanks? There is none.

And buffing only NATO tanks would be bad for balancing. Your argument with the IFV also does not apply for most factions. RU has only one faction with those IFVs, and the chinese IFVs are not good enough to compensate the shitty ZTZ.

[granite heron]

Abrams is 6 to 6,5

[granite heron]

Nope its like 750 can even get less on range

[granite heron]

8 or even less

[loud monolith]

It's 800 and has damage drop-off.

[granite heron]

Never got 800

[loud monolith]

It starts losing damage immediately so at common engagement distances it's closer to 750 than 800. Still a 4 shot kill to about 380 metres. I think tanks are a bit odd and can take more damage from finishing blows or whatnot.

Since the HAT does 1400 a shot but it kills a 3000 health tank in two hits.

[granite heron]

Yes and thats doesnt make any sense

Its cumulative and era should do something and not be design

[autumn canopy]

It does take 2 HATs and a LAT to kill MBTs

[loud monolith]

It's 2 HATs.

[autumn canopy]

2 HATs are not enough to kill and MBT, it require an additional LAT hit.

[loud monolith]

It actually doesn't. Do it in game and you kill it in two hits.

I've played plenty of two shot HATs and tanks go down in two hits with no burning.

[autumn canopy]

You did not. The tank was already damaged in this case

first hit

second hit

it took around 60 seconds for the tank to burn out

[loud monolith]

On live server? I have always been shooting full health tanks and they die in two shots.

[autumn canopy]

...