1163006

ex pack

June 17th, 2004 09:45 AM

I dunno if this has ever been brouth up be4, hope it dint
but i think the expack should be different.
I think it should take like 5 or 6 seconds befaure putting it to the ground, and to have less then 4.

Its to easy just to trow 1 on a sherman and blow it up, or to put one on the ground, run away and to ruin a close combat fight.

1163126

Re: ex pack

June 17th, 2004 10:29 AM

AFAIK, they are replacing it with timed satchel-charges

1163182

Re: ex pack

June 17th, 2004 10:53 AM

A tank is not for close combat without infantry support, so it deserves to be destroyed. And timed explosives what use do they have, they will just be ultra strong grenades then. It's nice to put expacks in a concealed place and watch (light) armor or infantry pass by before blowing them skyhigh. Esp cause mines do only little damaga against tanks.

1163250

Re: ex pack

June 17th, 2004 11:21 AM

Do people even pay attention at all?!?!?!?!? EXPacks are already gone . . . NO MORE!!! . . . . removed! 0.62 they are replaced with sachel charges that have a 5 second fuse, mines are going to do more damage and they will also be hard to see!

If you would casually glance through the forum or even . . . use the . . . . . (gonna say it) . . . . . use the search function. Then maybe we wouldn't have the same thread opened like a thousand times.

New ideas, or no ideas.

1163931

Re: ex pack

June 17th, 2004 03:27 PM

Yes, expacks are being replaced with timed satchel charges.

And I must say, they are quite nasty to anything smaller then a panther, though they do give the tanker a chance to escape (if you hear a charge hitting the tank, get out and RUN)

1163992

Re: ex pack

June 17th, 2004 04:05 PM

Just a question for you, McGibs: Will you be able to "disarm" the satchel charges with a wrench? (Assuming you're fast enough.)

1164018

Re: ex pack

June 17th, 2004 04:22 PM

Well, if satchels don't do fatal damage panthers or larger, and landmines are no longer "frisbees of death", I sure hope that handheld AT weapons are increased in damage to deal with them. And the aimbug fixed Sorry, had to say it.

1164693

Re: ex pack

June 18th, 2004 12:41 AM

probally not cuse they are just likea grenade but with a shorter throw distance ..

1164994

Re: ex pack

June 18th, 2004 09:30 AM

Why does everyone seem to think that Inf. should be able to casually take out tanks with ease . . . . ? Tanks are hard to kill that was the whole idea. If tanks were able to be easily taken out by Inf. then they would not have been created. The AT weapons devistate the tanks already, they don't need to be more powerful.

1165163

Re: ex pack

June 18th, 2004 12:07 PM

Well, I don't mean they should be a lot better, but inf DO need SOME WAY of taking them out. Look at the % of tanks that are taken out by Expacks now? Minus that, and you have some serious tank rapeage. You can't always rely on friendly tanks being nearby to help.

Plus, the only way AT "devistate tanks" right now, is by horribly abusing the aimbug. If that stays ingame, they'll be fine (ugh) but if that's fixed, AT will be MUCH harder to use effectively, unless tweaked in many areas, IE. range, damage, firing time.

Whenever you see a tank roll into a base to take it, 99% of the time what do you see kill it? An expack. Nobody bothers to mine bases, and aside from me and a couple people I see, nobody sits in a base with a zooka/schreck waiting for a tank.

PLUS on most maps, there is almost nil for emplaced AT defenses, so all the work is on the shoulders of tanks, and inf. If your teams tanks are destroyed or distracted, should all the inf defending against enemy tanks instantly be forfeit? You may say yes, that's realistic, or no, not at all, but I think somewhere in the middle is more appropriate. We all have our own opinions, but mine is NOT that inf should own tanks, just keep the gameplay and balance in mind.

Please don't classify me as "Everyone"