Tank damage

[pupbarn]

In my opinion the damage a tank's shell does aircraft in Renegade was far too little, I think the drivers should be rewarded for getting such a nice shot. Will the damage to aircraft be increased in renegade x?

[[NE]Fobby[GEN]]

Well the reason why it took a few hits to destroy aircraft with a tank cannon was probably to encourage the use of more efficient anti-air weapons. Aircraft is supposed to be the tanks' nightmare, if tanks were good against aircraft then vehicles like the Med would have no real weakness.

I think we could live with it. Tanks already do good-enough damage against aircraft.

[pupbarn]

QUOTE (NEFobbyGEN @ Feb 3 2009, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well the reason why it took a few hits to destroy aircraft with a tank cannon was probably to encourage the use of more efficient anti-air weapons. Aircraft is supposed to be the tanks' nightmare, if tanks were good against aircraft then vehicles like the Med would have no real weakness.

I think we could live with it. Tanks already do good-enough damage against aircraft.[/b]

I suppose your right.

[pupbarn]

I hope you will change the damage arrangements regarding the mammy. I always thought the sabot should do more damage against buildings and vehicles while the rockets should be effective ONLY against infantry.

[Pr0eX]

QUOTE (pupbarn @ Feb 7 2009, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope you will change the damage arrangements regarding the mammy. I always thought the sabot should do more damage against buildings and vehicles while the rockets should be effective ONLY against infantry.[/b]

that has something todo with the range, if the slowest vehicle (mammoth) has reached rocket distance to your building (and your team couldn't prevent this) then its your fault he's making this amount of damage (we pretend here its not a noob inside the mammoth, I see still some noobs not using the rockets). Also remember the mammoth is the most costly vehicle in game! So its well balanced!

[R315r4z0r]

QUOTE (Pr0eX @ Feb 7 2009, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that has something todo with the range, if the slowest vehicle (mammoth) has reached rocket distance to your building (and your team couldn't prevent this) then its your fault he's making this amount of damage (we pretend here its not a noob inside the mammoth, I see still some noobs not using the rockets). Also remember the mammoth is the most costly vehicle in game! So its well balanced![/b]

I disagree with this. The missiles should have only been strong against infantry and aircraft. The cannons against structures and other vehicles.

However, since it wasn't that way in Renegade, it shouldn't be different in Renegade X.

[Pr0eX]

QUOTE (R315r4z0r @ Feb 7 2009, 05:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree with this. The missiles should have only been strong against infantry and aircraft. The cannons against structures and other vehicles.

However, since it wasn't that way in Renegade, it shouldn't be different in Renegade X.[/b]

Even if we take RL, dont you think you can make more damage with a rocket then with a simple tank-shell? (If you dont belive it.. go to army, I was and also I saw those exposions, belive me... you cant compare rocket with a tank.shell!!!)

[[NE]Firestorm]

it obviously depends on what kinda rocket or tank shell being used

[Pr0eX]

QUOTE (NEFirestorm @ Feb 7 2009, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it obviously depends on what kinda rocket or tank shell being used[/b]

90% of tank shells are agaings other TANKS, the other 10% are mostly not used, but rocktes are nearly 100% used to destroying structures, vehicles (flying) and rary used to kill direct ppl (this what bombs are for).

[a1h]

QUOTE (Pr0eX @ Feb 7 2009, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if we take RL, dont you think you can make more damage with a rocket then with a simple tank-shell? (If you dont belive it.. go to army, I was and also I saw those exposions, belive me... you cant compare rocket with a tank.shell!!!)[/b]

If the tanks using XM1028, troops aren't going to like that at all http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8 Incase anyone wants a look

but against buildings i am going to have to take an RPG7 using some PG & TBG, but that's my personal opinion. (even though its a grenade)

my point is i am going to agree with Pr0ex the differences between a tank shell and a rocket hitting a building is massive.

[pupbarn]

In Renegade the med and mammy shells did around the same, this doesn't make sense as the mammy's cannons are far bigger than the meds. i think the mammy's shells should at least do a bit more to put a stank off a quick sneaky rocket from behind.

[Spycon_Fighter]

QUOTE (pupbarn @ Feb 8 2009, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In Renegade the med and mammy shells did around the same, this doesn't make sense as the mammy's cannons are far bigger than the meds. i think the mammy's shells should at least do a bit more to put a stank off a quick sneaky rocket from behind.[/b]

But doesn't the mammy attack faster?

[pupbarn]

QUOTE (Spycon @ Feb 8 2009, 03:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But doesn't the mammy attack faster?[/b]

Each canon fires at the same speed as med, it fires faster because there's 2. The canons are at least twice as big ffs, they should do more damage!

[Jngdwe]

The goal of Renegade-X is to reproduce C&C Renegade on the unreal 3 engine, not put more realism into the already well balanced game. Arguing about damage is pointless because its obviously going to remain the same to stay true to Renegade.

[pupbarn]

Renegade had many flaws, it wasn't perfect and there's no point leaving the obvious ones in when we have the chance to get rid of them.

[DXR_13KE]

chill out guys, the beta testers will be testing the hell out of game play and balance things out!!

[a1h]

QUOTE (pupbarn @ Feb 8 2009, 03:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Each canon fires at the same speed as med, it fires faster because there's 2. The canons are at least twice as big ffs, they should do more damage![/b]

Lets as for arguing sake, Bigger barrel means more damage? well no there is many things to counteract that, such as type/size of round. What if the Medium tanks barrel is a smoothbore and the mammoth tanks is rifled? that could easily make up for the size difference in diameter.

Just a thought there, but as already stated nothing is going to be changed for realism sake, besides games theses days force to much realism that makes them sort of drag and boring (just my opinion)

[0rca234]

QUOTE (a1h @ Feb 9 2009, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just a thought there, but as already stated nothing is going to be changed for realism sake, besides games theses days force to much realism that makes them sort of drag and boring (just my opinion)[/b]

Yes alot of games are too realistic for my liking, and i just don't find them intersting, Renegade on the other Hand is unrealsitic an I love it.

[Pr0eX]

QUOTE (a1h @ Feb 9 2009, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lets as for arguing sake, Bigger barrel means more damage? well no there is many things to counteract that, such as type/size of round. What if the Medium tanks barrel is a smoothbore and the mammoth tanks is rifled? that could easily make up for the size difference in diameter.

Just a thought there, but as already stated nothing is going to be changed for realism sake, besides games theses days force to much realism that makes them sort of drag and boring (just my opinion)[/b]

Too much realism brakes the game, why do you guys think its called game? and not "simulation of RL" ? --> because its not realism at all! Also C&C was never ment as realism games (I mean the good title.. not the EA realism simulation sh***) however, we may do it as far way from RL as possible, if its fun (see games like Bomberman, what is much fun with no realism!)

[0rca234]

QUOTE (pupbarn @ Feb 8 2009, 05:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Renegade had many flaws, it wasn't perfect and there's no point leaving the obvious ones in when we have the chance to get rid of them.[/b]

Yes Renegade has loads of flaws and things wrong, but changing just a few of these will unbalance the game. Renegade would have to be totally redesigned to make it the way it could of been (more like original C&C). But Renegade has been around for quite a while now that people (including myself) have got used to it being so different such as
- Nod artilery being so overwelmingly powerful
- Flame tank eats tanks upclose (I remeber in C&C TD 5 flame tanks could not beat a Mammy) and also they don't totally pwn infantry.

If there is one thing that I would like to see in Renegade X (although I doubt it would be possible) is for infantry with rockets launchers to have homing in rockets like the stealth tank, Mammy, MRLS, and aircraft do.

[R315r4z0r]

QUOTE (Pr0eX @ Feb 7 2009, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if we take RL, dont you think you can make more damage with a rocket then with a simple tank-shell? (If you dont belive it.. go to army, I was and also I saw those exposions, belive me... you cant compare rocket with a tank.shell!!!)[/b]

Who said anything about realism?

I'm just saying how it was in Renegade compared to how it was in Tiberian Dawn (The game Renegade is based off of).

[GummiBear]

QUOTE (orca234 @ Feb 9 2009, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If there is one thing that I would like to see in Renegade X (although I doubt it would be possible) is for infantry with rockets launchers to have homing in rockets like the stealth tank, Mammy, MRLS, and aircraft do.[/b]

Why should that not be possible? If the renegade engine can do it (and it can, the mod "A path beyond" have it) then I se NO reason why the UT3 engine shouldn't be able to

[0rca234]

QUOTE (GummiBear @ Feb 10 2009, 09:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should that not be possible? If the renegade engine can do it (and it can, the mod "A path beyond" have it) then I se NO reason why the UT3 engine shouldn't be able to[/b]

What I meant was that if the infantry rockets were changed to so they have the ability to home in then it would make the gameplay different to original Renegade, infact im guna mention this on the Tiberian Technologist forum.

[R315r4z0r]

As far as I know, the basic rocket troopers will have straight-firing rockets, whereas Gunner will have the ability to use tracking rockets.

[Combine 108]

QUOTE (R315r4z0r @ Feb 11 2009, 05:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I know, the basic rocket troopers will have straight-firing rockets, whereas Gunner will have the ability to use tracking rockets.[/b]

A petty question, but will Gunner's launcher be different from the normal ones? I mean, it fires faster and can track. It must be more advanced...it should have some slight modifications, e.g. darker paint job, small motor for accelerating rocket firing, laser for tracking. Just aesthetics, IMO. Sorry if this has already been discussed.

Oh... never mind. i seem to have gotten the two mixed up..

[AkuKo]

QUOTE (Havoc89 @ Aug 31 2008, 12:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The rocket officers will have tracking capability to make them more useful. Gunner's rocket will remain the same.[/b]

I don't now if things have changed in 4 months but I thought that they would improve rocket officer because they are quite useless. Maybe add secondary fire with tracking missiles to gunner also but keep the rate of fire same as rocket officers?

Gunner

primary: fast rockets, fast rate of fire and no tracking
secondary: fast rockets, slow rate of fire and tracking

AkuKo

[madkill]

QUOTE (NEFobbyGEN @ Feb 3 2009, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well the reason why it took a few hits to destroy aircraft with a tank cannon was probably to encourage the use of more efficient anti-air weapons. Aircraft is supposed to be the tanks' nightmare, if tanks were good against aircraft then vehicles like the Med would have no real weakness.

I think we could live with it. Tanks already do good-enough damage against aircraft.[/b]

Tanks are only vulnerable to aircraft is because-
A) Aircrafts are more agile and can dodge the shell
B) An Aircraft can go directly above a tank and it wont be able to get attacked (hurr)

And so on, however a tank shell would destroy an aircraft almost straight away, so you're one hell of a bad pilot for being hit, be awesome if a tank shell could completely mess parts of an aircraft up (or any explosive weapon) of which the aircraft can lovingly spiral downwards into the ground.

Make sure Ravenshaws Rail Gun cannot kill an aircraft straight away pwease.

[supergsx]

QUOTE (a1h @ Feb 9 2009, 05:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lets as for arguing sake, Bigger barrel means more damage? well no there is many things to counteract that, such as type/size of round. What if the Medium tanks barrel is a smoothbore and the mammoth tanks is rifled? that could easily make up for the size difference in diameter.

Just a thought there, but as already stated nothing is going to be changed for realism sake, besides games theses days force to much realism that makes them sort of drag and boring (just my opinion)[/b]

OOOOOH!!! That just sparked a thought!

In the original Renegade, there really weren't any physics, or fo-phisics for that matter, AT ALL.
Different guns obviously have different power and different velocities for the projectiles, so how about adding some physics to the BIG cannons. This makes more sense and is much more realistic than in Renegade where in a Marty, you shoot all the way across the map and your shell hits exactly where you aimed it, seemingly moving much slower than a bullet, when a bullet does the same exact thing. You should have to aim your big cannons up a bit to hit targets at a distance...
Perhaps someone might not like the idea, but it makes the game more realistic and... im pretty sure the ut3 engine already has this!

[supergsx]

QUOTE (supergsx @ Mar 18 2009, 01:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OOOOOH!!! That just sparked a thought!

In the original Renegade, there really weren't any physics, or fo-phisics for that matter, AT ALL.
Different guns obviously have different power and different velocities for the projectiles, so how about adding some physics to the BIG cannons. This makes more sense and is much more realistic than in Renegade where in a Marty, you shoot all the way across the map and your shell hits exactly where you aimed it, seemingly moving much slower than a bullet, when a bullet does the same exact thing. You should have to aim your big cannons up a bit to hit targets at a distance...
Perhaps someone might not like the idea, but it makes the game more realistic and... im pretty sure the ut3 engine already has this![/b]

Oh, and to bring myself into this actual conversation, WITH THE ADDED PHYSICS, it should be infinitely harder to hit a flying vehicle than without them... So I say you should make shells damage the vtols and choppers much more than they did in the normal renegade.

[MightyBOB]

See the FAQ thread.

QUOTE

Q: Since Unreal has better physics than C&C Renegade, will you alter some vehicles, such as the projectile physics for the Artillery actually being a parabolic arc?

A: Every weapon in Renegade is point-&-click with no projectile drop or slowdown aside from the Grenade Launcher and tossed C4. We intend to keep it that way in Renegade X, although it could be possible that the Artillery's shell will travel straight for a very long distance and then fall to the ground once it hits its maximum range.[/b]