Home » Renegade Discussions » Tactics and Strategies » Vehicles vs Infantry
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190189 is a reply to message #190147] |
Thu, 16 February 2006 10:31   |
 |
terminator 101
Messages: 822
Registered: March 2003
Location: Toronto
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| cheekay77 wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 01:26 |
| Terminator 101 wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 00:59 |
Anyway, I think that at least the free infantry should have infinite ammo, to make it more useful.
|
Infinite ammo with infantry would make it unbalanced. Think about it. Raveshaw with infinite ammo. Thats insane that they never have to reload, they could minch any tank. Blah, not worth it.
|
Don't answer this one. Everione on this board knows the answer already.
P.S: I was going to say "are you ****ing idiot?" but since I am allways polite, I decided not to.
[Updated on: Thu, 16 February 2006 10:39] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190190 is a reply to message #189961] |
Thu, 16 February 2006 10:37 |
MrWiggles
Messages: 231
Registered: October 2005
Location: CANADADA
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Lithius, if you could get 100 armour off pirates med without him shooting you in your face, I would also pay you $100. In fact, if you could take off 100 armour on mine, spoonys, or de_7's med with your chem warrior I'd pay you $100.
im best rene
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190191 is a reply to message #189961] |
Thu, 16 February 2006 10:38 |
 |
Dr. Lithius
Messages: 609
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
*edits out his stupidity, seeing as this post turned into a serious discussion again*
| MrWiggles wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 10:37 |
Lithius, if you could get 100 armour off pirates med without him shooting you in your face, I would also pay you $100. In fact, if you could take off 100 armour on mine, spoonys, or de_7's med with your chem warrior I'd pay you $100.
|
Could I get that in writing? 'cause firing for three seconds straight while avoiding being run over or shot at really isn't that big of an issue for me. You did say "Armour," did you not? Don't write a check your ass can't cash, mate. :3
Now, if you meant to say "Health Points" instead, that would prove an admirable challenge. I'd have to last through 18 seconds of darting and dodging shell splash, gunfire, and being run over, and go through one reload before I wittled down the 500 total health.(Do the math yourself! Chem Spray does about 334 damage per tank of Chemical mix.) So if you meant "Health Points," I'm pretty sure you'd win that bet. "Armour Points"? Not even a challenge.
Edit: And for the record, it takes about 29 seconds(and two reloads) for a lone Chem Sprayer to take down a Medium Tank. It takes about 44.5 seconds(and three reloads) for a lone Chem Sprayer to take down a Mammoth Tank. Also, as mentioned before, one tank of Chem Spray does 334 damage to a Heavy Armor vehicle while one Laser Chaingun..."clip"? While one Laser Chaingun "clip" does 320. Just thought I'd throw those stats out there.
Second Edit: Keep in mind, as a Chem Warrior, I am right on top of the tank. Rather, right next to it. Close as I can get without being street pizza. Chem Spray has a dispursal to it as it's a spray, not a solid. Thanks to mrpirate for bringing this to my attention.
[Updated on: Thu, 16 February 2006 12:13] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190200 is a reply to message #190191] |
Thu, 16 February 2006 11:58 |
 |
Sniper_De7
Messages: 866
Registered: April 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
Edit: And for the record, it takes about 29 seconds(and two reloads) for a lone Chem Sprayer to take down a Medium Tank. It takes about 44.5 seconds(and three reloads) for a lone Chem Sprayer to take down a Mammoth Tank. Also, as mentioned before, one tank of Chem Spray does 334 damage to a Heavy Armor vehicle while one Laser Chaingun..."clip"? While one Laser Chaingun "clip" does 320. Just thought I'd throw those stats out there.
|
That only proves the point that anyone who can't take down a chemical warrior in 29 seconds doesn't deserve to be in a med tank
Oderint, dum metuant.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
[Updated on: Thu, 16 February 2006 12:02] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190202 is a reply to message #190191] |
Thu, 16 February 2006 12:06 |
|
terminator 101
Messages: 822
Registered: March 2003
Location: Toronto
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I could not have said it any better Sniper_De7
| Dr. Lithius wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 12:38 |
it takes about 29 seconds(and two reloads) for a lone Chem Sprayer to take down a Medium Tank. It takes about 44.5 seconds(and three reloads) for a lone Chem Sprayer to take down a Mammoth Tank. Also, as mentioned before, one tank of Chem Spray does 334 damage to a Heavy Armor vehicle while one Laser Chaingun..."clip"? While one Laser Chaingun "clip" does 320. Just thought I'd throw those stats out there.
|
Interesting, I did not know that. But even if it is true, it is still safer to shoot tanks at long range, because if you are going against people who have fast computer, they will always hit you at close range, no mater how much you dodge.
"It is time you saw the future, while you still have human eyes"
Cheaters only Cheat themselves!
so
Hasta la vista, baby!
[Updated on: Thu, 16 February 2006 12:09] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190204 is a reply to message #190199] |
Thu, 16 February 2006 12:16 |
|
Dr. Lithius
Messages: 609
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| mrpirate wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 11:31 |
That's a misleading statistic, because an LCG Black Hand does that amount of damage from anywhere within its range, while the Chem Warrior has to be right the fuck next to the tank to do maximum damage. I really wonder what you think a tank is going to be doing while you saunter up to it.
|
Easy enough to answer... Most tanks are usually busy opening fire on Nod's buildings, or usually, their Harvester. It's stunningly easy to "sneak up" on someone driving a tank.
| Quote: |
P.S. Lithius, what server(s) do you usually play in, and under what name? Just curious.
|
The server varies, but I've been hanging around n00bstories.com's server more often than not. The username is usually "DLithius". Sometimes it's "SC2Fwiffo" when I feel Spathi enough for it.(And here I'll assume the reference went woosh...right over everyone's heads.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190206 is a reply to message #189961] |
Thu, 16 February 2006 12:46 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
It is quite clear to me that Dr Lithius plays against the cream of the Renegade community.
I'm sorry, but I find the idea of a chem trooper destroying a med tank rather funny. I'm not disputing the fact you've done it countless times, I'm disputing the fact you've done it against a player with any discernable ability to use a med.
I'm sure I could go into a public server, buy an engineer and pistolwhip a Mobius with it (on XWIS, it's a virtual certainty). That doesn't mean engineers are better suited to combat than Mobius, it means the mobius couldn't aim for shit
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190208 is a reply to message #189961] |
Thu, 16 February 2006 12:56 |
|
Dr. Lithius
Messages: 609
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Alright! Fine! I get the point! "The people on n00bstories suck," is what you're saying! Okay, fine! Whatever!! Fucking move along already! Elitests... Clan members... You're all alike. You take a good thing and fuck it up for everyone else who dare be different! God forbid someone have some oddball strategy that works for them. If it's not the usual run-of-the-mill bullshit but it works, then "the people you play against must suck"! God...
[Updated on: Thu, 16 February 2006 14:50] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190216 is a reply to message #189961] |
Thu, 16 February 2006 15:17 |
 |
m1a1_abrams
Messages: 375
Registered: August 2003
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
Hey calm down man. If I understand other people correctly, nobody is saying that your strategy is worthless... just that it's really unreliable and even though it may work well on occaision, most of the time you won't get chance to put it into effect. I try crazy, off-the-wall strategies too, just for something different... it's fun because if you can make it work, it's rewarding knowing it's that much harder to pull off.
All we are saying is that while Chem Warriors killing tanks is *possible*, the fact that not many people attempt it shows that it's not something that works very often. Your first post here kind of suggested that Chem Warriors are *the* answer to tanks, which is what all this dissent is about. They are *a* answer to tanks, in very specific circumstances, but way down there on the list of effective anti-tank weapons.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190218 is a reply to message #189961] |
Thu, 16 February 2006 15:51 |
|
Sniper_De7
Messages: 866
Registered: April 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Christ, no one is saying you suck or any other bullshit you're talking about. All we're saying is that chemical warriors, are *not* better than tanks - and not even close.
Let me put it into an example to make it more obvious. Say, the best player who ever played this game decided to buy a chemical warrior. There isn't anything he could do that anyone else couldn't do with it to make a person who was in a med tank (and was at least average) to be able to AT LEAST kill him by splash, even if he couldn't get a body/headshot on him. What I'm saying is that what a chemical warrior can do is limited. There is no above and beyond where someone who was so great could outperform anyone else in it. You just *can't* beat the fact that a med is faster and could easily run away from it. You just *can't* beat the fact that it has longer range. and you just *can't* beat the fact that it takes a whole few seconds to even shoot at the ground and kill him with splash if you didn't even want to kill him. That is the point I've been trying to get acrossed. The point is not saying that a group of people suck, i was just saying that anyone who would lose to a chemical warrior does. THAT was my point. If you want to go ahead and interpret whichever way you want, then go ahead. But I've laid it out countless times, over and over.
I mean if you seriously can explain to me how a person in a med tank couldn't run away even if they were dying from a chemical warrior? Maybe - just maybe - if you can explain such things I'd give some credit. But take for instance Under, it takes 29 seconds to kill a med? By that time I'd make it from the front of Nod's base to the front of GDIs. Hence why you can be infinity good with a chemical warrior, but you just can't beat someone who is smart enough to be able to utilize what the game gives him.
If you want to go ahead and use chemical warriors, then so be it. I know there are people out there who can't use tanks. If I had to give them advice I'd say for them to actually keep using them so they'd get better. Enough so that instead of being limited to infantry only, they have a variety. And pretty much *all* infantry is limited. Why? Because a tank driver can out-tech (if they have tech/hotwire) than the damage given by the infantry. That is why it's *much* more effective to use tanks.
So if you don't want to utilize any of this, then fine. I don't honestly give a flying fuck if you didn't. So don't come in here crying as if we're trying to change your gameplay because I can only hope you can make your own choices just as much as anyone else.
Oderint, dum metuant.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190233 is a reply to message #190189] |
Thu, 16 February 2006 18:53 |
 |
Renerage
Messages: 1223
Registered: May 2005
Location: Hamilton ON, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Terminator 101 wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 12:31 |
| cheekay77 wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 01:26 |
| Terminator 101 wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 00:59 |
Anyway, I think that at least the free infantry should have infinite ammo, to make it more useful.
|
Infinite ammo with infantry would make it unbalanced. Think about it. Raveshaw with infinite ammo. Thats insane that they never have to reload, they could minch any tank. Blah, not worth it.
|
Don't answer this one. Everione on this board knows the answer already.
P.S: I was going to say "are you ****ing idiot?" but since I am allways polite, I decided not to.
|
your the fucking moron. Read what i said. Reload as in, have to go back to the hand and PURCHASE THE RELOAD/REFILL OPTION. Whos the retard now?
A pissed off noob Once said:
I DESLIKE YOU!
[Updated on: Thu, 16 February 2006 18:56] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190265 is a reply to message #190233] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 05:58 |
 |
Dave Mason
Messages: 2357
Registered: April 2004
Location: Shropshire, England
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheekay77 wrote on Fri, 17 February 2006 01:53 |
| Terminator 101 wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 12:31 |
| cheekay77 wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 01:26 |
| Terminator 101 wrote on Thu, 16 February 2006 00:59 |
Anyway, I think that at least the free infantry should have infinite ammo, to make it more useful.
|
Infinite ammo with infantry would make it unbalanced. Think about it. Raveshaw with infinite ammo. Thats insane that they never have to reload, they could minch any tank. Blah, not worth it.
|
Don't answer this one. Everione on this board knows the answer already.
P.S: I was going to say "are you ****ing idiot?" but since I am allways polite, I decided not to.
|
your the fucking moron. Read what i said. Reload as in, have to go back to the hand and PURCHASE THE RELOAD/REFILL OPTION. Whos the retard now?
|
You're*
www.myspace.com/midas
[Updated on: Fri, 17 February 2006 05:58] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190281 is a reply to message #189961] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 10:20 |
MrWiggles
Messages: 231
Registered: October 2005
Location: CANADADA
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Why don't a few of us, me, pirate, spoony and lithius all join the same server tonight. We could prolly use spoonyserv if spoonys ok with that. The 3 of us join GDI, Litius on Nod. Then, sum1 buys a med, litius a chem warrior and we each take turns shooting lithius in the face to prove out point. I mean, there's no point in argueing semantics without proving anything... I'm not even going to include de_7 because he would put us all to shame...
im best rene
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190284 is a reply to message #189961] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 10:29 |
|
Sniper_De7
Messages: 866
Registered: April 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
why on earth are you putting an underscore after de
Oderint, dum metuant.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190299 is a reply to message #189961] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 13:33 |
flyingfox
Messages: 1612
Registered: February 2003
Location: scotland, uk
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Despite everything that has been said, chem warriors are still useful for other purposes...for example...few people know about the flamethrower/chem thrower's armour shield against explosives. Chem throwers can take about double the hurt than any other soldier against c4, meaning they can run through a bitch of a mining job and survive...much to the happiness of their teammates for getting rid of a minefield faster than a technician. it also means they can survive longer in a building where enemy engineers are tossing remotes (or proxies) at all the enemies present. Do you realise what this means? In an APC rush, a chem warrior is really useful as he'll eliminate practically any mining job and STILL live to plant his C4.
They're also useful on occasion early on - for example on Canyon. An early chem rush sometimes succeeds in taking out the ref...
I wouldn't go so far as to say they were cream of the crop in eliminating med tanks. They ARE a guaranteed killing machine when e.g. they sneak up on MRLS. I've used the chemical warrior a lot before, just for the sake of posing myself a challenge and trying to take the skill I have and turn the chem into a useful unit. It doesn't always work...but then again, what does?
Edit: And if you guys are going ahead with this match with chem warrior vs a med, you'll be paying big bucks. It's really easy to take 100 armour pts off of a surprised med regardless of how good the med driver is -- does being good in a med mean you can move it away quicker? Nope. To avoid 100 damage you'll have to get a lucky HS, or body shot and finish them off with splash damage. There might not even be time enough for 2 shells...my money will be on lithius.
[Updated on: Fri, 17 February 2006 13:42] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #190304 is a reply to message #189961] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 14:36 |
|
Dr. Lithius
Messages: 609
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
MrWiggles, Sniper_De7 had already calmed the point down back to a reasonable level. Must you insist on beating this dead horse until it's a fine paste?
Also, I refuse to participate in your little "Let's take turns shooting Lithius in the head" thing until I can get that "$100.00/100 Armor" deal in writing. With your signature at the bottom. You get something written/printed up and signed in your handwriting, then we'll talk. All I know is that it takes all of three seconds to melt off 100 points of damage at point-blank, and not terribly much longer at other ranges. In that time, you will most likely get a whole two shells off(or just one if you're really unprepared), and there's no gaurentee either of them will actually hit, much less kill me before I can melt off the 100 Armor Points.
[Updated on: Fri, 17 February 2006 14:37] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Vehicles vs Infantry [message #193830 is a reply to message #189961] |
Sat, 25 March 2006 19:53 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
To settle this once and for all:
- The chem Trooper, with his big, crimison head, is NOT the greatest asset to play with. The advantages of tiberium shielding are meaningless when everything that has a tiberium weapon also has a pistol to hit that nice, big head of his.
- The chem Sprayer is a great weapon, dealing massive damage up close.
If the tank is preoccupied with something else (And tanks almost always are), a chem trooper (Or better yet, another soldier using a chem sprayer) should have NO TROUBLE taking a medium tank down to about half it's life. By Dr. Lithius's calculation, that's a little over a chem tank's worth of damage. That's easily atainable for anybody with a reasonable amount of experience with Renegade and the chem sprayer.
Destroying the tank is another matter. It's pathetically easy to kill infantry at short ranges using a tank.
It's exponentially harder if the tank driver knows the chem trooper is coming (I'm sure this is what MrPirate was thinking). For example, if MrPirate positions himself in the middle of C&C_Field and waits for Dr. Lithus to come around, he can just use the tank's vastly superior range to take down Lithus before he gets anywhere near the tank. Even if Lithus does manage to somehow approch the med, tanks are faster (Except the mammy), and he can easily back away while taking potshots are poor Lithus.
My point being that the chem sprayer is a fantastic weapon, assuming you can get close enough to use it. If you can't, you're better off with a laser chain gun and a good rock to hide behind.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Sat, 25 March 2006 19:54] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Aug 07 03:59:32 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01245 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
