# Should Vehicle Disabled Mechanism be used in BF1? **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [May 27, 2016, 5:12pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545 "2016-05-27T17:12:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lordmang4](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/e19b73/32.png) [@Lordmang4](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Lordmang4)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 5:12pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/1 "2016-05-27T17:12:00Z")
My vote is “no”. I’d like to be able to one-shot destroy some vehicles much as in BFBC2 (e.g. quads). This wasn’t possible in other BF games (e.g. BF4) when the vehicle disabled mechanism was used. ---
**Author:** ![Vespervin1](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/v/278dde/32.png) [@Vespervin1](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Vespervin1)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 5:14pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/2 "2016-05-27T17:14:00Z")
I dislike the vehicle disabled mechanic and I especially dislike the mobility hit mechanic, so my vote is also ‘no’. I have gotten used to it and adapted when playing BF3 and BF4 but that doesn’t mean I like it, no matter which end of the vehicle encounter I’m on. ---
**Author:** ![DingoKillr](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/dingokillr/32/101728_2.png) [@DingoKillr](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/DingoKillr)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 5:12am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/3 "2016-05-28T05:12:00Z")
Yes, if vehicle have dynamic damage. There are points on a vehicle which will disable it movement like tracks, wheels and flaps. ---
**Author:** ![KaaDaver](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/kaadaver/32/102448_2.png) [@KaaDaver](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/KaaDaver)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 5:26am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/4 "2016-05-28T05:26:00Z")
> [@DingoKillr](#): > > Yes, if vehicle have dynamic damage. There are points on a vehicle which will disable it movement like tracks, wheels and flaps. If it was to be implemented then it should follow this sort of idea. Disabled by destroying tracks via mines. If tracks have been disabled on 1 side via rocket then the vehicle can escape but at limited mobility and control. I think that’s fair. On the other hand. Vehicles would be severely hindered by this an would inadvertently encourage defensive play. Good for infantry bad for vehicles. Personally I think bf4 v3hicles are pretty spot on. Not too damaging and have weaknesses. To keep the spirit of battlefield we don’t want to Nerf vehicles extensively otherwise we should call it infantryfield, and who wants to play a sub par infantry fps ---
**Author:** ![DingoKillr](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/dingokillr/32/101728_2.png) [@DingoKillr](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/DingoKillr)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 8:20am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/5 "2016-05-28T08:20:00Z")
Having no mobility hits or disabled gives far to much advantage to vehicles, infantry taking non-lethal hits is being suppressed. If vehicles have to play more defensive requiring infantry to support the better. Having a vehicle disabled and unable to move while still at 80% health I think adds a new aspect to the game, ecspecially when we have a vehicle crew class. Having disabled mobility hit still did not stop vehicle user top the round or getting high scores. ---
**Author:** ![visegrip117](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/visegrip117/32/104005_2.png) [@visegrip117](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/visegrip117)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 11:49am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/6 "2016-05-28T11:49:00Z")
I also dislike the mobility damage. If it has to be implemented. Then do as stated above. Only have it become active if a direct hit to the tracks is taken or if a single mine is ran over ---
**Author:** ![Peccath](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/peccath/32/103094_2.png) [@Peccath](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Peccath)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 11:50am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/7 "2016-05-28T11:50:00Z")
Disablement and mobility hits made vehicle vs vehicle fights really dull in BF4 (and BF3). More damage from a perfect 90 degree hit to the rear should be enough. ---
**Author:** ![JuSt1sS](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@JuSt1sS](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/JuSt1sS)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 12:09pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/8 "2016-05-28T12:09:00Z")
It must be different types of disable. Like engine disable or main gun disable. ---
**Author:** ![CAPT\_Gangplank](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/eb9ed0/32.png) [@CAPT\_Gangplank](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/CAPT_Gangplank)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 12:19pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/9 "2016-05-28T12:19:00Z")
Considering there are no RPGs in ww1, I wonder how you would one-shot a tank as anything else than another tank a class higher or artillery. I certainly think disablement and mobility reduction adds to the realism of the thing. Tanks don’t necessarily explode on the first blow, and light tanks were actually not impervious to machine gun fire. It could kill crew members inside, but that would not be immediately destroyed by it. The first real anti tank weapon was deployed by the germans in 1918. It was a scaled-up bolt-action rifle designated the Mauser Tank-Gewehr Model 1918 that fired a 13mm cartridge with a solid bullet that could penetrate the thin armor of tanks of the time and destroy the engine or ricochet inside killing occupants. So it seems to me that dynamic damage/disabled/movement impairing is the logical way to go. ---
**Author:** ![visegrip117](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/visegrip117/32/104005_2.png) [@visegrip117](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/visegrip117)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 12:31pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/10 "2016-05-28T12:31:00Z")
No RPGs could also be part of the reason we have no engineer class. So I wonder what class will be anti tank. I believe assault has a tank grenade, correct? And support has the repair tool, correct? (Admittly not very efficient at destroying tanks but possible.) Scout has the anti tank rifle, correct? Is it possible the tanker class will have a way to destroy also. And without engi, did they distribute the anti tank capabilities amongst the other remaining classes? ---
**Author:** ![AFROSRB](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@AFROSRB](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/AFROSRB)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 12:46pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/11 "2016-05-28T12:46:00Z")
There should be mobility hits and vehicle disability, otherwise tanks would be too powerfull. One shot a tank is simply unrealistic and wouldn’t fit the gameplay balance…except like in BF4 if a tank drives over two AT-Mines,which is OK. And this says a passionate tank driver! With RPG you neither can take out a tank with one hit by 100% tanks health, you need two RPG Hits to the rear of the tank. So in BF1 I hope there will be also (and DICE is aware of this) this kind of balance, but it was officially announced that the tank damage will differentiate due to the thickness of a wall or it’s structure. Therefore I think it will be the same with weapons. ---
**Author:** ![VenomRTX](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/venomrtx/32/103986_2.png) [@VenomRTX](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/VenomRTX)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 2:14pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/12 "2016-05-28T14:14:00Z")
If they limit at which point mobility hits happen and how long they last, then yes. if it’s anything like BF4, where a MBT at full HP can be rendered virtually (or completely) stationary by a single shot for 10s, then no. Mobility hits made reactive armor almost mandatory in BF4, incentivized passive gameplay and made lock-ons even worse to boot. The WW1 setting means no rocket lauchers, but no CMs either. If we make mobility hits commonplace like in BF4, then chances are vehicle gameplay will be made even duller. If it’s implemented in a way that’s not obtrusive nor detrimental to vehicles, then yes, it makes sense. If not, it’s one thing we can certainly do without. ---
**Author:** ![CAPT\_Gangplank](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/eb9ed0/32.png) [@CAPT\_Gangplank](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/CAPT_Gangplank)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/13 "2016-05-28T14:20:00Z")
Making vehicle repairs an important part of vehicular combat would be great. Also it very much was a thing that there would be units that would capture disabled enemy tanks and bring them ‘home’ to repair them. The Entente powers often saw their own tanks deployed against them by the Germans. ---
**Author:** ![Razerdragon22](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/ba8739/32.png) [@Razerdragon22](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Razerdragon22)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 8:50pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/14 "2016-05-28T20:50:00Z")
I think the Assault should have at grenades that will do damage like a rocket launcher but will have an arc, next I hope that support will have dynamite/satchel charges working like c4, lastly recon will have an AT rifle able to do damage like the at grenade but only from the sides and rear (ineffective in the front) ---
**Author:** ![VenomRTX](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/venomrtx/32/103986_2.png) [@VenomRTX](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/VenomRTX)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 3:41am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/15 "2016-05-29T03:41:00Z")
> [@Razerdragon22](#): > > I think the Assault should have at grenades that will do damage like a rocket launcher but will have an arc, next I hope that support will have dynamite/satchel charges working like c4, lastly recon will have an AT rifle able to do damage like the at grenade but only from the sides and rear > (ineffective in the front) So, 3 AT classes? Tanks would have to be immensely powerful to compensate - and that, in turn, will cause complaints from infantry. What you get here is powercreep, plain and simple. I’d much rather have one AT class, so everything can be kept at reasonable levels: vehicles are neither too powerful to the point where you need 3 classes to fight them, nor are they so weak that there’s no point in using them. AT nades and the occasional AT rifle are more than enough. Any more than that and you’d have to start buffing vehicles to compensate, restarting the cycle. ---
**Author:** ![snakeheadinvade](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@snakeheadinvade](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/snakeheadinvade)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 4:19am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/16 "2016-05-29T04:19:00Z")
the vehicle disabled mechanic was implemented to nerf the some what over powered tanks from bc2. but in bf4 i think the light criticals were a bit too far making it to where if you got hit you were you were moving at the pace of a snail disables can be countered by repairing and its not even that hard to repair so i dont really care. my vote would be throw it in because if its not there the tanks would dominate battlefield ---
**Author:** ![DingoKillr](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/dingokillr/32/101728_2.png) [@DingoKillr](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/DingoKillr)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 4:24am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/17 "2016-05-29T04:24:00Z")
> [@VenomRTX](#): > > > [@Razerdragon22](#): > > > > I think the Assault should have at grenades that will do damage like a rocket launcher but will have an arc, next I hope that support will have dynamite/satchel charges working like c4, lastly recon will have an AT rifle able to do damage like the at grenade but only from the sides and rear > > (ineffective in the front) > > So, 3 AT classes? Tanks would have to be immensely powerful to compensate - and that, in turn, will cause complaints from infantry. What you get here is powercreep, plain and simple. > I’d much rather have one AT class, so everything can be kept at reasonable levels: vehicles are neither too powerful to the point where you need 3 classes to fight them, nor are they so weak that there’s no point in using them. > AT nades and the occasional AT rifle are more than enough. Any more than that and you’d have to start buffing vehicles to compensate, restarting the cycle. You don’t know the strength of these AT weapons, so we have know idea how strong they are. What is the point to have a single Infantry class to deal with vehicles. If Vehicles are going to have up to 4 or 5 people in them does that mean we need 6 AT infantry just to get 1 vehicle. So another BF full of engineers. Both BF3 and BF4 had more then 1 AT Infantry capable class. ---
**Author:** ![VenomRTX](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/venomrtx/32/103986_2.png) [@VenomRTX](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/VenomRTX)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 3:09pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/18 "2016-05-29T15:09:00Z")
> [@DingoKillr](#): > > You don’t know the strength of these AT weapons, so we have know idea how strong they are. What is the point to have a single Infantry class to deal with vehicles. If Vehicles are going to have up to 4 or 5 people in them does that mean we need 6 AT infantry just to get 1 vehicle. So another BF full of engineers. > > Both BF3 and BF4 had more then 1 AT Infantry capable class. Their power is a direct function of their numbers. Logic dictates that something that requires 75% of all infantrymen to act against it must be absurdly powerful. Now, if they put a lot of underwhelming weapons, infantry players will feel powerless against vehicles. If they are powerful, their sheer numbers will make using vehicles pointless. Then, they’d have to be buffed to compensate, starting the powercreep, or the AT gear would have to be nerfed, returning us to the first point. You don’t know if tanks will have 6 weapons _either_. Or if said 6-men tanks will be in all maps, or if all of these 6 passengers will have weapons, or if they can be used at the same time, or if they’re powerful… Carrying a lot of people and having a lot of weapons are two very distinct things. Things aren’t black or white like that. There’s no valid explanation as to why 3 out of 4 infantry classes should have access to AT gear. Infantry is _ **not** _ the only thing tanks must be concerned about, so unless they buff tanks to astronomic levels to justify such opposition, having that much AT power is bad game design, plain and simple. A more simplistic approach allows for better, easier balance, more intuitive mechanics and more fluid gameplay. There’s no reason to overcomplicate things by adding several AT weapons, that will have to be countered somehow. Adding things just for the sake of adding seldom works. And since when are BF3 or 4 standards when it comes to vehicle gameplay? 2 classes with C4 (one of them being able to ressupply itself), lock-on spam, badly implemented mobility hits, CMs failing every other time they’re used… If that’s what’s considered good vehicle gameplay, if that’s what we are building upon, then I will avoid BF1’s vehicles like the plague. ---
**Author:** ![Benny9393](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/benny9393/32/101317_2.png) [@Benny9393](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Benny9393)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 3:47pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/19 "2016-05-29T15:47:00Z")
I think mobility hits can work for land vehicles, if DICE just refined the idea a bit more and put a bit more depth into the system. I feel like for air vehicles, mobility hit is a big no no, at least how they had it in BF4. What I want to see gotten rid of is tanks not being able to destroy jeeps and similar vehicles with one shot. Looks ridiculous and doesn’t add anything to the balance or gameplay as the passengers will still all die. ---
**Author:** ![DingoKillr](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/dingokillr/32/101728_2.png) [@DingoKillr](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/DingoKillr)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/should-vehicle-disabled-mechanism-be-used-in-bf1/101545/20 "2016-05-29T16:08:00Z")
That the is point not all AT weapons have to destroy in 1 or 2. Here some possibility AT grenade may be able to destroy tank tracks but only slight damage the main body and they maybe only carry 1 or 2. AT gun may do 6 damage at a rate of 5 rpm. Tanks like the British had up to 4 side gun slots plus the front one, being cannon or MG varies on version used. Yet the AT Infantry weapons I have seen talked about are placed, throwing range or around 500m. There is artillery around the map I think will be able to use like stationary TOW, these would like be as powerful as the Tank Cannons but they may be slow to aim. In the trailer you can see the cannon I am talking about at 31s on the right of the screen.