Lack of Tank Defensive Capabilities
Hello forum, long time no chat! A little bit of background on myself, I've been an active battlefield player since BF1942, and generally focused on (when it existed) Engineer type game play or of co...
Forum Discussion
Explosive Reactive Armor was actually good, it took some skill to rotate your tank to the side that still has armor on, so you could take 3 free shots if you rotate properly. It could also be repaired, promoting teamwork. Active Protection System was just press button for short invincibility. So I would prefer brining back Reactive Armor than APS.
- @GoguJinn With how many active threats there are with the higher player count I've pretty much reconsidered my feeling on ERA, if it is standard. Also a tweaked APS could still work if it only protected against ground based rockets, not other tank shells, or munitions that can damage armor, strictly rockets. Either way I'd be happy with some sort of option rather than 0.
@Anti-Tank-Killer wrote:
@GoguJinnWith how many active threats there are with the higher player count I've pretty much reconsidered my feeling on ERA, if it is standard. Also a tweaked APS could still work if it only protected against ground based rockets, not other tank shells, or munitions that can damage armor, strictly rockets. Either way I'd be happy with some sort of option rather than 0.Aps protected your tank for 2.5 seconds with a 20+ second cooldown. How is that considered OP? It blocked one shell when fighting another tank, which could also block a round of yours. It blocked maybe half a rocket salvo from an attack heli (that the tank couldn't even fire back at). It never stopped C4, and I very much doubt if they put it in 2042 it would stop NWT rounds.
APS was usually used like a smoke cover to get away from too many attackers, only better because it worked on dumb fire missiles too.
- @TheCompton73 1. I never said the APS was op, with someone mentioning how it defeated everything incoming I simply suggested a tweaked version with different features and priorities to combat. I see the lack of need for an overlapping system if a jamming type system was introduced for ground vehicles vs aircraft lock-on's hence my lean towards soldier fired rockets and rockets from ground based threats.
2. Tank v Tank fights are already rare as is, adding a system to discourage more fighting is bad, especially if you already have ERA. So an APS that targets tank shells, while useful, is overall not good for a fight and I hope you can see this as having to many 'outs' and punishing a tanker who has good positioning over their opponent. This would also allow the APS to focus and preform better in terms of defending against possible rocket spam, and I'll even say if it countered a fraction of unguided rockets from a helo I would be ok with that. Damage mitigation is the name of the game, not damage immunity. While I agree tanks should be a hard target, they should not be overwhelming in the sense that we would trade offensive (which is very lacking as is) capabilities for simply being hard targets.
Having options is good though. Im all for an ERA+APS+EWAR capable vehicle, especially if my turn speed is as slow as it is, or my turret feels like its hand cranked.
@GoguJinn wrote:Explosive Reactive Armor was actually good, it took some skill to rotate your tank to the side that still has armor on, so you could take 3 free shots if you rotate properly. It could also be repaired, promoting teamwork. Active Protection System was just press button for short invincibility. So I would prefer brining back Reactive Armor than APS.
You do you.
I chose quick repair instead.
Take some hits, then use APS to escape the area protected by APS while your quick repair kicked in.
