Yeah, I've been rather busy lately. Two jobs. Ugh...Nicholas Langdon wrote:
havent seen you online in forever True.
I've been wanting to get on and play, but my sleep schedule has been all screwy. It should be stabalizing soon. Or so I hope.
You bring up many true, and good, points.DrunkFace wrote:
There are some reasons why using a tank successfully is harder then playing infantry. And then there are reasons why it is easier, I'll list them both.
Easy:
Has near on unlimited ammo with no need to 're-load'
Has a main cannon which does lots of damage and lots of splash damage, but is also very slow firing.
MG has no deviation and does lots of dmg. So it kills what ever you point it at.
Is basically invincible to 4 of the 7 classes.
Is strong and can take multiple hits from almost every weapon.
You can move and shoot with no loss in accuracy (if you know how to lead).
Basically it is a strong armoured beast which can take a lot of damage and return even more.
Its massive, in comparison to an infantry soldier it is huge, which makes it easy to hit, easy to see and therefore easy to kill.
Manoeuvrability is low, it can not strafe, it can not jump, its extremely slow in starting and changing directions.
Moving over rough terrain changes where you were aiming and sometimes a hill is necessary just to hit someone.
Aiming is limited, Not only is the gun slow to move, it can only move in a limited arc and can not shoot down or up making it impossible to hit some things.
On maps with planes it will have a nice big highlighting box around it , while infantry can remain anonymously hidden.
There are 3 kits which are basically dedicated to killing tanks.
While in a tank you are (or at least should be) the main target of almost all the enemy.
Repairing is slow, unlike infantry which can be instantly healed, tanks take a long time to repair.
Basically you are a big slow sitting duck with everyone out to get you.
It's all relative though, trying to drive a tank with an ace pilot or chopper crew is like running a marathon with your legs tied together. Even against good infantry its extremely hard to stay alive as they can put 3 AT rockets up your ass before you can even tell where they are let alone move your turret to kill them (especially if they are firing from different locations). 1 AT on a building is almost impossible to hit yet can rain death apon the armour below. Of course if you're playing against idiots who keep choosing kits which can't kill tanks on maps like Karkand then there is nothing easier then racking up 50+ kills 0 deaths, but then they deserve it.
My issue is not with the pros and cons of effective tanking. It's the idea that it takes more skill than being an effective sniper.
Getting a 6:1 KDR ratio in a tank should not be difficult. Getting a 3:1 KDR in an APC shouldn't be difficult, either. It's only because of these rather easy to attain ratios that armor becomes a magnet for AT tactics. Even then, most armor users still manage to pull off these ratios before they themselves are finally killed. This is especially true on maps without choppers or bombers.
The fact remains that an effective tanker typically does well because of the team around them. The same can be said about an effective sniper. The difference lies with the firepower available to each, the defensive properties attributed to both, as well as the tactics employed.
For the OP to say that having near invulnerability to all but the most devastating of weapons is harder than running around with a semi-auto, or bolt-action, rifle strikes me as favoritism more than fact. Five out of fifteen categories of infantry weapons can "damage" a tank, but that includes weapons that have little damaging effect, like grenades or grenade launchers. Even AT rockets take from three to five rockets to bring down a fully functional tank. A sniper (let alone any foot soldier) doesn't have those same luxories.