Preloaded & Disposable AT Launchers

[jw custom 56]

Realism, and the fact that you pretty much cannot exploit the M136? But, of course it also depends on the mission, and who you play with. I couldn't even control my own guys, because they exploited things because the game let them. And they were pissed as hell when I tried to intervene. All I wanted was realism.

Realism? Where's the realism in having to load the rocket into your RPG-18 before firing it.

If the mission has any noticeable amount of enemy armor, everyone will give up those 6 inventory slots for an M136 anyway, and just suffer the lack of realism involved (usually M136 would be in addition to a rifleman's gear, not a replacement, except that rifleman will not carry any other "special" gear usually, which mostly includes the kind of stuff you don't even see in arma like extra water or stretchers).

Why would i give up those 6 slots when i can give up only 2 and get a smaw.

Anyway this is not about giving something up it's about reasonable balance.

[nkenny 1057]

As CG states-- its quite clear that for better or worse the 6slot disposable launcher is a matter of GAME BALANCE rather than REALISM.

Assuming SMAW type launchers are in some ways limited by the mission design-- the costly OPTION to bring a M136/RPG18 which grants the ability to discourage/destroy armoured vehicles is a classic case of prioritization. From a game point of view this is huge. You CANNOT damage (in any effective sense) an armored vehicle without a special tool-- if you want that ability then pay the price.

HOWEVER from a realism perspective this is quite atrocious. Additionally given the typical mission design of [here is a big crate of everything plz help urself lol] M136/rpg18s are again outclassed by better guns.

The best solution would be to get a new non-slot weight based inventory system. Heck. We've been asking for this since Operation Flashpoint. Until that time an agreeable solution in my eyes would be to make disposable launchers take up 3-slots, but leave the 'launcher' slot free. Thereby anyone could carry (even multiples) but at some cost to alternate munitions

-k

[avengerzx 10]

Make it real simple, Want realism? Get VBS2 instead.

[jw custom 56]

As CG states-- its quite clear that for better or worse the 6slot disposable launcher is a matter of GAME BALANCE rather than REALISM.

Where's the BALANCE in an RPG-18 giving the exact same penalty as a SMAW with 3 rounds.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Make it real simple, Want realism? Get VBS2 instead.

Then it's no longer only a matter of game balance, but also checkbook balance :p

@JW Custom:

The balance is that you can keep reasonably good supply of M136s which is a typical infantryman weapon, but the heavy cost of carrying it prevents it from being used to spam. In Domination for Arma2, every man carried a SMAW and a DMR. In Domination for Arma1, everyone carried a rifle, and M136 with at least 3 rounds. That's 90 M136s in a 30 man platoon. How is that realism?

The SMAW is used by assaultmen (in USMC anyways) and require a bit more training to operate. It is not available in great numbers to regular soldiers in a normal infantry squad.

But yeah, I have to agree that it is to some extent a force of balance rather than realism, but realism is achieved since not everybody wants to sacrifice loadout in order to carry a M136. Keep in mind my ultimate intent is to have a certain flow remain in a persistent mission.

Edited December 13, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[jw custom 56]

Thats exactly what i'm saying it's not balanced. What i'm talking about is having, in particular the RPG-18 preloaded and disposable, meaning you can carry 1... only 1, no reload.

Now you can carry a SMAW + 3 rounds but only 1 RPG-18... balance?? Where?

It's not like the RPG-18 is superior to the SMAW.

So selecting:

A RPG-18/M136 disposable:

+ Saving space

- only 1 round

A SMAW:

+ Easier to hit with

+ more rounds

- taking up more space

[CarlGustaffa 4]

By removing all cost to carrying one (currently number of slots, in ACE the mechanism is weight and stamina), everybody can now carry one because they exist in great numbers. My medium (MAAWS) and heavy AT (Javelin) teams are now out of a job, because the infantry squads carry enough anti tank to handle just about everything. Instead of using it for self defense in an emergency, a normal infantry rifle squad is now on the hunt for tanks, which is not what they do.

Btw, in my setup you can't select a MAAWS/SMAW/Javelin unless you're a certain slot. I have only one SMAW and only one Javelin, each with an assistant slot (ammo).

Edited December 13, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[jw custom 56]

By removing all cost to carrying one (currently number of slots, in ACE the mechanism is weight and stamina), everybody can now carry one because they exist in great numbers. My medium (MAAWS) and heavy AT (Javelin) teams are now out of a job, because the infantry squads carry enough anti tank to handle just about everything. Instead of using it for self defense in an emergency, a normal infantry rifle squad is now on the hunt for tanks, which is not what they do.

Javelins can hit and destroy armor on great distance which the the M136 can't.

As it is now everybody can take a SMAW with 1 round and only loose 2 ammo slots that does the exact same as the M136 except you save 4 ammo slots and have a weapon with a higher shooting distance.

[nkenny 1057]

@JW Custom

That may be the case in missions with unrealistic weapon availability. In missions where SMAW/Javelin/whatnot launchers are scarce-- yet the M136/RPG18 appears in realistic numbers (ie issued as necessary. Not unlike handgrenades)-- it 'costs' you 6 slots to HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO PENETRATE ARMOUR where otherwise you would have NONE.

6 Slots may seem like a steep price when you want to bring X magazines and Y extra grenades. When that BMP2 Rolls through some nearby bushes-- and your SMAW team (limited remember?) hasn't got effective LOS. That M136 is worth its weight in gold.

Either way I agree. Arma2 slots system is silly and became even more so with the inclusion of backpacks.

-k

[max power 21]

There's really no getting away from needing a true stamina system with direct effect to movement ability

Just a way to influence movement rate would be enough, I think.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i think that the main problem laying under the whole thing is that do the disposable ATs disposable will not go well with the gaming (for fun) concept; you could carry all your combat patrol equipment and two M136, but you'll never run more than 5m and will always be walking, during long long hours by a marked route. That's not fun and can be even more boring to do it on a video game than do it IRL where you've your squad mates to chat with.

We're also suppossed to be able of handle almost any engagement in the game, while IRL you're not, this goes againist the gaming industry non written policy of allow the players to do things that they wouldn't and couldn't do IRL but don't eliminates the fact that the current method to prevent AT spamming is stupid and don't makes no sense; a disposable AT shouldn't need to take any inventary slot and be truly disposable, the big (really AT) launchers should use the secondary weapon slot instead ammo slots in the inventary and/or have it's own space as a separate tag on the inventary (as slinged stuff) not inmediately "ready to use" by the common reload method of hit a key to reload. This way i think that will make the game be more like a simulator and less the weird hybrid that's now. That's what i think. Let's C ya

[CarlGustaffa 4]

It's also easier to get away with, or get acceptance for, scripting for positive features than scripting for negative features. Meaning that if I script possibility to carry an extra launcher, that is accepted or at least tolerated. But if I remove the possibility to carry two launchers because it was needed in the mission and the game was designed to allow it, that would be hated.

[galzohar 31]

By removing all cost to carrying one (currently number of slots, in ACE the mechanism is weight and stamina), everybody can now carry one because they exist in great numbers.

Well if they exist in unrealistically big numbers then that's the mission designer's fault. Really no way around that. Even a true stamina system might not be able to fix that.

Just a way to influence movement rate would be enough, I think.

That's why I specifically said "direct effect to movement ability", as that's the most important part of a stamina system.

[jw custom 56]

@JW Custom

That may be the case in missions with unrealistic weapon availability. In missions where SMAW/Javelin/whatnot launchers are scarce-- yet the M136/RPG18 appears in realistic numbers (ie issued as necessary. Not unlike handgrenades)-- it 'costs' you 6 slots to HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO PENETRATE ARMOUR where otherwise you would have NONE.

6 Slots may seem like a steep price when you want to bring X magazines and Y extra grenades. When that BMP2 Rolls through some nearby bushes-- and your SMAW team (limited remember?) hasn't got effective LOS. That M136 is worth its weight in gold.

Either way I agree. Arma2 slots system is silly and became even more so with the inclusion of backpacks.

-k

So because your LOS is limited with the SMAW it's okay that it with 3 rounds give the same penalty as a M136/RPG-18 with 1 round. What if your encountering BMP2's on a greater distance then the SMAW is it's weight worth in gold.... +some because you got 2 extra rounds!

In the end the RPG-18 isn't a real good choice.

I can see the point with the M136/RPG-18 not taking up any ammo slots would make most people carrying one, so i'm not sure how this could be solved. Maybe a simple weight -> movement speed penalty.

[nkenny 1057]

The whole point is that if your unit, for whatever the reason, DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO SMAW, CG, or RPG-7 type weapons-- the M136/RPG18 start to be worth it. Ie: Its a matter of game balance, and quite clever too.

As has been stated multiple times in the thread; the slot system is badly in need of update, redesign, or scrapping. A notion which I wholeheartedly agree with.

-k

[jw custom 56]

The whole point is that if your unit, for whatever the reason, DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO SMAW, CG, or RPG-7 type weapons-- the M136/RPG18 start to be worth it. Ie: Its a matter of game balance, and quite clever too.

Thats in my opinion a bad balance.

When i make missions i sometimes wanna equip my units with a RPG-18 because it's light(which in arma would mean not taking up much space), not because it's very powerfull or have a long range which it doesn't have. But when the penalty is the same as with the SMAW + 3 rounds or the M136 for that sake it doesn't make sense.

[max power 21]

That's why I specifically said "direct effect to movement ability", as that's the most important part of a stamina system.

I think that you perhaps weren't reading my post correctly. You said we need a realistic stamina system. I said, 'No we don't. I think that influencing soldier movement rates is enough'. As in, soldiers with heavier loads moving slower, period.

[Evil_Echo 11]

I think that you perhaps weren't reading my post correctly. You said we need a realistic stamina system. I said, 'No we don't. I think that influencing soldier movement rates is enough'. As in, soldiers with heavier loads moving slower, period.

+5 to that.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@JW Custom:

Please at least use the MAAWS as example over the SMAW. The MAAWS is updated to reflect greater space requirements for the rockets. If an updated USMC DLC someday comes, I expect the SMAW ammo to be updated to three or maybe even four slots (they are pretty big compared to the MAAWS rockets).

So, I have this stockpile of M136s. Everyone can grab one, but will loose valuable slots and ability to carry backpack. Typically one or two in a 9 man infantry rifle squad.

Then there is a single AT team in play as well. If only the gunner is in play, he becomes very inefficient because he can only carry two rockets (and 6 mags, but his ammo crates only give him one each of the rockets anyway). His assistant on the other hand, gets to carry two rockets in inventory pluss whatever his backpack can fit. So as a team, they get formidable firepower available, and the M136s of the rifle squad probably never even have to get used, and they achieve it's intended use - emergency protection rather than tank hunters.

Now, what happens if I give MAAWS with one round instead of M136 to the rifle squad? They get one to join as the AT ammo carrier, but team up with the rifle squad and keep them happily supplied with rounds. Somehow the rifle squad is now a rifle squad / AT team combo - which I did not intend. Furthermore, when someone joins as a MAAWS gunner (he sees that the MAAWS ammo carrier slot is taken), expects to team up with that guy. But no, instead he is now a very inefficient AT loner with scarce access to ammo.

Teamwork is more than teamwork within a single team, but also across teams.

Carrying cumbersome equipment is something you don't want to do. The 6 slot is the only current way to depict that. Cumbersome equipment have this property that if you forget you're carrying it, it will make sure to remind you it's there. Ever exit a truck with an MG3 pipe sticking out of your bag, that gets between your head and helmet, because you forgot about it being there? :D

In the end the RPG-18 isn't a real good choice.

Also the same with M136 and M72 if we had them. My point is, it's not our (that is, the gamers) choice to make. No military force lets their units choose what they want. It's "here is your rifle and your M72, now go do your job". "But but, I want a SMAW!!" Huh? Military doesn't work that way, sorry.

Well if they exist in unrealistically big numbers then that's the mission designer's fault. Really no way around that. Even a true stamina system might not be able to fix that.

I don't think there is a way around it for persistent based mission. You need good access to things, but a stamina system will force the player to not try to carry more than he should. There will always be loopholes, but I'm very happy to see that it seems that balance seems to be an important factor wrt how certain things are implemented. I've seen screams like "SAW gunners should also be allowed to carry backpacks". Although I technically agree, it's easy to see where it gets exploited (way too much ammo carried). The way SAW gunners doesn't get to carry a backpack, solves just that.

It's pretty much like vehicles. If I want additional weaponry out in the field, I have to load it up in vehicles. But the vehicles can only hold a limited amount. You now have to choose what you want out there. It also raises the tactical value of the vehicle. You don't take unnecessary chances with an MHQ loaded with additional weaponry, because the penalty for loosing it is too great (takes a lot of time to fill it up again after respawn). My ammo crates are only ammo crates, you won't find weapons in them ;)

@wipman:

In your case, you redesign the mission so that everyone carries a SMAW if they want to, if that's how you define fun. Fun for me is realism, immersion, and difficulty involving more than how good the AI is. Being forced to make decisions is fun for me, and having to take the penalties for making the wrong decisions. How cool would EW be if every enemy encountered was full of ammo? Check out that "let's play EW" thingy :p

[jw custom 56]

No military force lets their units choose what they want. It's "here is your rifle and your M72, now go do your job". "But but, I want a SMAW!!" Huh? Military doesn't work that way, sorry.

This is a GAME... i would like to have a RPG-18 because it weights and fills less than other AT weapon. Penalty for this is a less effective weapon but thats what you get for saving space.

Anyway we have to agree on disagreeing. This is a suggestion thread and i approve the suggestion :)

Over and out... of this thread.

[nyles 11]

This is a GAME... i would like to have a RPG-18 because it weights and fills less than other AT weapon. Penalty for this is a less effective weapon but thats what you get for saving space.

Anyway we have to agree on disagreeing. This is a suggestion thread and i approve the suggestion :)

Over and out... of this thread.

+1. Yep!

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Well, it's also the only realism based game, so... :p And I'm also for improvements, as long as some good balance remains.

[nyles 11]

To me it feels, like you guys are just looking at it from a coop or fixed-class mission point of view. If I take a look at something like Warfare, both RPG18 and M136 are being dominated after a short while, since everybody goes for the medium or heavy AT choices instead.

Not even the super-cheap price compared to the others helps keeping them attractive. If they wouldn't take any equipment slots, but still would be kept at a max of 1, I'm sure they would be more interesting as a backup choice for more players.