[hardboy1864]

There will be to many rockets to dodge. Not to mention the hailstorm of paintballs that will coming your way. After the first hour you will pass out from exhaustion from all that jumping around like a lunatic.

[BlackAngelSS]

this whole discussion is pretty silly

#1 Its pretty damn hard to dodge a nerf even if you happen to be looking at the direction it is shot from

#2 If you can move out of the way of something being shot at you of course you can try to move and avoid it.

#3 in the heat of july you are going to be so tired from walking around,getting shot at with that box on your head that you wont have alot of energy left to jump.


Walking tanks are good on paper.cheap to build and maintain, but you cant possibly compete all weekend long with motorized vehicles. anyone who says different is either Lying,dillusional or both

[BlackAngelSS]

i made a vid a while back for our PAK 40 anti tank gun. In it i shot at my buddy "LT"

Even with no box on his head or screen obstructing his vision, while facing the A/T gun and with a weak air cannon of around 190 or 200 fps he still couldn't jump out of the way

so if jumping out of the way of nerfs is your strategy ,you will want to rethink that


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CZzGx986vw

[r_clarke]

I'm very glad to see everyone still talking about our G.I . Joe Game
while i don't really like the 2 shot rule, i do see the reason for it.

People bring these tanks/ AT-ATs etc out to be seen and have there work pay off, and to have one shot, then walk all the way back to re-insert.

The next DH production will most likely have a 1 shot rule for the walking tanks, because a lot of team don't run with LAWs, and sides can/will get uneven (law wise) like what happened at the joe game. It was my launcher that was loaned to cobra.

IF you can dodge a rocket...the do it. Like eric from STC said
LAWMEN have to be able to hit a moving target...

[lemieux68]

Excuse me but they are clearly AT-STs. Duh.

[Boom Master]

Yes, walking tanks can dodge rockets. Done it on several occasions from a LONG shot. 30 yards or less, you don't have enough reaction time. You may be dodging a Rocket but it missed you anyway... No point in making a rule and unenforceable anyway.

•Limit the number of tanks or launchers that can be on the field at one time.
•Limit the amount of ammo that tanks or launchers can carry.
•Restrict tanks from certain parts of the field.
•Change the number of rocket or grenade hits it takes to disable or eliminate a tank.
•Restrict tanks to special missions during designated times.
•Mark off fill boxes on the tank so paintballs can eliminate tanks.
•Allow rockets to take out buildings and bunkers.

This is a dilema producers and field owners are trying to cope with. Unsuccessfully, so far, in my opinion.

I hunted tanks for years before building my ATST walking tank so I come from the perspective of BOTH sides.

The tanks have a legitimate beef that they have too short a life expectancy due to the number, quality, and skill of the anti tank players. They paid good money to play paintball and have fun like everyone else PLUS incurred the expense of building, maintaining, transporting, and operating a tank. Less so for the walking tanks but still extra expense to ADD to the entertainment pleasure of all the players attending and providing a special paintball experience.

An additional problem is the lack of insurance for motorized tanks. People that can afford to build and operate tanks are not inclined to risk their net worth by playing without insurance. The motorized tanks are becoming fewer and at risk of becoming an endangered species. It is noted, over the last year, MORE walking tanks have entered the field of battle. Is it the future of armor in paintball?

The other side of the coin is that the guys that bought or made their Anti Tank weaponry feels entitled to be allowed to use them. Limiting the number of Anti Tank players in the game or limiting ammo is short sighted and just pisses off paying customers.

•Limit the number of tanks or launchers that can be on the field at one time.

Limiting ammo is a riduculous solution simply because Anti Tank Weaponry are AIR HOGS and you get limited number of shots due to your limited air supply. It is already self limiting. Anti Tank players ALSO have a very limited life expectancy and would rarely USE the number of Nerfs they have been restricted to.

The solution is simply to raise the survivability of tanks and let everyone play with their toys to the best of their ability.

That is what would be BEST for the SPORT. ANYTHING that limits the use of special weaponry in scenario play DEGRADES the Sport of scenario play and the long term economic viability for the field owners and producers. We can go play rec ball with a marker locally for a lot less money. To those who say, 'Paintball should be about paintball', I say "Go play at your local rec field."

•Restrict tanks from certain parts of the field.

Motorized ARE restricted to tank roads already. All an anti tank player has to do is take a nap next to a tank road... An easy kill. The infantry has to maneuver WITH the tanks. Walking Tanks are able to maneuver WITH the infantry. A much more realistic use of armor. The anti tank players have to pursue a walking tank protected by infantry. Much tougher to kill with protection in addition to be smaller targets that can use cover. One reason they are so dangerous. They work like real mechanized armor units.

•Change the number of rocket or grenade hits it takes to disable or eliminate a tank.

This is a viable option. Have actually played as anti tank and walking tank with these rules. Hand grenade disables mobility but not offense for 5 minutes. Second grenade kills. My walker survived every attempt under these rules3 times. A whole different story when one grenade kills my walker. Very tough to advance on infantry in a defended position.

•Restrict tanks to special missions during designated times.

No tanks would come to play. Why pay a registration fee to sit around MOST of the weekend? Why even build a tank to play by those rules? Nothing should discourage players from building or playing with their Special Weaponry.

•Mark off fill boxes on the tank so paintballs can eliminate tanks.

The Tour of Duty (no longer a series) Producer, Bill Bailey developed the system used today at Oklahoma D Day. (Bill has been Axis General for years) Initially, they tried the targets on the tanks to be hit with special fill colors using standard markers. Had to change it because of the tanks complaining that they could not SEE that the player shooting at them was an anti tank player rather than just another paintballer shooting paint at the tank. They adopted the mocked up marker to LOOK like a bazooka so the tanks could see and identify the anti tank threat. It kinda works if you don't allow ANY other kind of anti tank weaponry. Last I heard, Bill has resumed allowing Nerfs to kill tanks at his field's scenario game. Too many players want to PLAY with their Nerf Launchers and from a business point of view, you don't want to discourage players from coming to PAY and Play at your games...

•Allow rockets to take out buildings and bunkers.

That is one of the DEFENSES a tank has against a LAW player. They will not waste a Nerf on a bunker with one or two grunts in it but will blast away at bunkers containing an Anti Tank player. A cluster of a dozen players in a large structure IS an inviting target and Darwinism should teach those players not to bunch up like that when a tank comes around... Destroying structures that neither side can occupy without an engineer rebuilding it OR a 15-30 minute time limit before it can be occupied again is a tactical decision the tank as to make. One way to DENY points to the other side that is HOLDING your objective is to destroy it. One tactic to TAKE a heavily defended objective it to destroy it, then rebuild and then occupy it for the mission points. A chancy tactic the may or may not work... Usually a prelude to the first option to deny by destroying it.

There is a general concensus that due to the proliferation of Anti Tank weaponry and the skill level of the anti tank community, that tanks need to increase their survivability so they can have FUN at a scenario game and not spend all day in the dead zone. The Producers and field owners need to find a way to restore the balance of power between armor and anti armor WHILE letting ALL the players play with ALL their toys... We should encourage rather than discourage players that might be inclined to build and operate a tank. Motorized or Walker.

Instead of limiting the number of LAWS on the field, limit the number of LAWs that are ANTI TANK only and assign the rest of the LAWs as demolition only roles. Have to come up with a system so all the players involved can verify that a demo player is not shooting at a tank illegally. Colored TAPE on the barrel of the LAW would work... Or Just have color coded ID cards that the anti tank player can just flash at the tank and refs to verify the kill...

The second option is to go BACK to the Tour of Duty and D Day's solution to increasing the survivability of armor. Way back when the Sport established the use of NERFs for ammo rather than 20 paintballs in a styrofoam cup, we had the SAME PROBLEM we have now. Decreased tank survivability. The use of the Nerf technology for ammo greatly increased the accuracy and thus effective kill range of a LAW. Their solution was to put 2 foot square targets on the sides of the tanks that had to be MARKED with paint to kill a tank. An improvement would be FOUR targets on each side of the tank but like the current marker targets on armor, make them different sizes to reflect the realistic armor thickness on real tanks. Very small on the front, medium, on the sides, and large on the rear.

That could be the SAME for tank on tank eliminations as well as anti tank eliminations OR Tank on tank engagements could remain a hit anywhere on another tank is a kill.

That would solve the problem and the required target size could be specified or even changed on game day to match the number of LAWs that register. Two hooks mounted a specific distance apart to hang the producers targets on and two eye hooks mounted a specific distance below and apart to attach a bunji cord to to hold the targets in place.

For walking tanks like mine that may opt NOT to use the targets, I think we should just call it 'light armor' and a hit anywhere kills it. Mine is so small it has no place to hang a 2 foot square target on. For that matter, I guess any tank could opt not to use targets if they want...

[BlackAngelSS]

motorized tanks are not "limited to roads" Anywhere i know of on the east coast. maybee florida but idk cause i dont play that far.

Making an atv ect stay on the road is gay and ruins the game for the tanker. I wouldn't play at a field with those rules. 5mph with a ref escorting the tank is good enough

[JESTERTLS]

That was one of the things I hated about D-Day. They have these great open fields and wouldnt let the tanks drive through them. If the grass is high, I can understand that, but most large fields have a bush hog. And they are not that complicated to use.

[hardboy1864]

BOOM MASTER you are a true diplomat for our games.

[Boom Master]

I could use some help persuading the Producers and Field Owners to our way of thinking. All of you send a link to this and other conversations to your favorite fields and producers along with your point of view. They DO listen over time..... How a concensus develops. Lots of player feed back that is constructive helps the sport evolve.

Here in the midwest, many scenario fields are heavily wooded with only the rec part of the fields with bunkers and short grass. Not a lot of open ground to mow. Yes, I have played where the grass was mowed and the tanks could see where they were driving in the field and thus able to maneuver safely. It was one of the few fields where about half the field was open ground. The TOD "Battle of the Bulge". Needless to say, it drew EVERY TANK around to the game along with all the Anti Tankers. The absence of cover prevented the anti tank guys (me included) from ambushing the tank. I had to be in a bunker which could be destroyed by tank Nerfs or from the bush on the side of the field where they were often out of range.

Easy for the tanks to keep an eye out for anti tank players and and provide suppression fire on the very limited numbers of places that could conceal an anti tank player. They only had to defend the sides of the tank from a hit. So we had to get a bit creative and hide in plain sight behind logs, bumps of dirt, clumps of cut grass piled over me, etc. Good camo helped. They were so intent on watching the other obvious places they simply didn't see me. However, Darwinism soon eliminated that tactic as they adapted fairly quickly. But is was up to ME to make sure they didn't drive over me... Just get the side of the tank in range for a shot.

Strangely, the targets only on the sides were problematic for tank on tank engagements. Always with the Tour of Duty and OK D Day. On tank roads they could rarely engage and it was not unusual for a Axis Tank to be 30 feet behind an Allied tank driving down the roads and not able to engage with cannon fire until they had a shot at a side. It was SOoooo lame. So rarely, in fact, that many TOD tanks removed their cannons entirely (could not destroy bunkers either) and paid dearly for it when my walking tank started playing the TOD and I could engage from the sides of the tank roads in my walking tank. They went NUTS for a while until they put the cannons back on. At this SAME game one got creative and persuaded the refs to let him use squeeze ketchup bottles as a Flame Thrower so they could defend themselves. Worked a couple fo times until I figured out how to stay out of 'Ketchup Range'. Made me miss a few times with my Nerfs. Used up extra air and ammo.

Conversely, when they went to paintball targets on all four sides the tanks could engage at any angle or position. Greatly improved the tank on tank game. We were concern about the above scenario where an Axis tank comes up behind an Allied tank on a tank road. The tank behind would have a LARGE 8" target on the rear of the tank in front of it and the tank in front would have a VERY small 2" target on the front of the tank behind. 'Taint a Fair Fight but exactly the way it would have been in a simular situation with real armor. We were concerned that "tank races" would potentially occur. The tank in front would flee from the tactical disadvantage and the tank behind would pursue the fleeing tank. The result would be two tanks exceeding the field speed limit and the drivers not necessarily paying attention to everything else going on around them. We were all relieved that that scenario did not occur. The tanks drivers had enough discipline to maintain the speed limits and quickly learned to watch the rear for enemy tanks so they could STAY out of effective range.

The limited amount of anti tank ammo which was issued by the field and a different fill color was also a factor that may have contributed to the absence of 'tank races'. It is hard to hit an 8 inch target from 30 feet bouncing down a road at 5 MPH if you want to expend less than 20 rounds. With unlimited anti tank ammo, they would just blast away until they got a tank kill. If they are firing at you, you would tend to want to push a little harder on that gas pedal.

[BlackAngelSS]

using paintguns for tank cannons is even worse than being stuck on roads

I imagine you agree

[Boom Master]

So spend your $money$ at other games but be kind enough to our Sport and send an e mail to the Producer at D Day explaining why. He hasn't been bragging about attendance over 4000 lately and was passed by another game as the 'largest' paintball game in the country. Help him connect the dots....

[Greyknight Jazzious]

Originally Posted by r_clarke

ive seen your work 1st hand, And am a proud LAW MEN...

I would suggest that IF your able to dodge a rocket, then make the rule
1 hit-kill, with no disable feature to balance it out
the "fill the kill box" idea works when neither sides have laws

I'm also a big fan of the
any natural/man made bunker is destroyed with 1 rocket hit.

In all event that me and my Grey Knight of Riverside team play and run, mech have always had a one hit, one kill rule. However certain effect are handled differently, like grenade hits. but for the most part the one for one rule balances the hard to hit mechs

Let me be clear about one thing as well, mechs or backpack tanks, are just that. They are not motorized, on rolling chassis, or powered in anyway other then a persons feet.

Motorized or rolling tanks have, in my book, counted as heavy tanks. This comes with both advantages and disadvantages. Bigger means more comfortable playing, more eyes and weapons, and better armor (2 shots to kill), but it also means in most event being stuck to the roads, slow, and much easier to hit target. BT are just the opposite. less comfort, less eyes and weapons, less armor (one hit), but it also means not being stuck to roads, much fast(in and out of terrain), and harder to hit. To me, it the classic light and heavy armor debate.
our event use the 3 rounds per allowed launcher (more or less)> Although there was a little rules bending, this keep the kill rate to an acceptable level.

This also all ends up with one dilemma; Referee training. Most refs don't care about the specifics of armored warfare, and of course this is all still just a game. Keep rules simple to understand. Tanker will have to give up certain aspect of the tanking, but will be befitting from better rules calls and much smoother game play. That goes for tank hunters as well. Getting stuck on whether or not a mech and dodge a LAW round will just muck up the game. I don't want my tank ref scratching his head or explaining to angry players why a tank should or shouldn't be killed because of fancy foot work. If you missed, or darn, and shot again.

That's my opinion. and , for our group, simple has always worked best. and with 1000 player events, its managed to survive the test.

[Winger CT]

"Can walking tanks (and robots and mechs) dodge rockets?"
Not sure, but I plan to find out at West Point this weekend! Our two CAS-PERs are very light weight, so hopefully that wlll provide enough maneuverability.
I'll let you know.