Preloaded & Disposable AT Launchers

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

The entire slotsystem is WAY out of date.

Surely in 10 years the shuld have been

an update on that to....Lazy

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Agreed, but iirc people aren't too happy when backwards compatibility is broken either.

[galzohar 31]

I guess we should be happy nobody is complaining about this game not running on DOS then? :P

In any case, yeah a slot system is outdated, but as long as the engine cannot handle a true stamina system then you can't really do anything better anyway. Other than of course make 1-time-use launchers not use half your space for ammo on top of the launcher slot.

[Laqueesha 474]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the INKO mod fix this issue?

[max power 21]

I guess we should be happy nobody is complaining about this game not running on DOS then? :P

In any case, yeah a slot system is outdated, but as long as the engine cannot handle a true stamina system then you can't really do anything better anyway. Other than of course make 1-time-use launchers not use half your space for ammo on top of the launcher slot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the INKO mod fix this issue?

I'm just wondering if you guys are prescient of the fact that we are discussing in a suggestions thread. Actual solutions to the problem, or problems posed to the realization of such solutions, or discussions about addons, are sort of neither here nor there. The fact that the engine doesn't currently support such a feature is the reason why it was suggested in the first place, and mod based 'fixes' aren't fixes.

[galzohar 31]

Well should make a "fix engine to allow proper stamina system" thread. Because the solution to disposable launchers is obvious, and ACE have implemented it, and now it's just a question of whether BIS want to implement it or not. We all know that reloadable with ammo in inventory doesn't work right no matter how much space the ammo takes, and anything more realistic than the ACE system is not really possible without fixing the rest of the game first.

Am I missing any other ideas that are actually relevant? Because imo this thread is really repeating itself. Everytime someone brings it up, the simple ACE solution comes up, and then a huge discussion about stamina systems and how they aren't really possible starts. I'm sure someone can dig up the 13 other threads same as this one.

[max power 21]

Well should make a "fix engine to allow proper stamina system" thread.

By all means, be my guest :)

[jw custom 56]

The RPG18 taking up 6 ammo slots is insane :eek:

[Evil_Echo 11]

Anytime I see a posting stating BIS must add some feature that a mod implimented into the core program I cringe. Mostly over the demand part, being that one person's opinion is being jammed down the throat of community.

Anyone who follows ACE knows that their stamina system is highly controversial. If you had to pick a topic that sorted ArmA into ACE haters vs admirers it's this one. That alone is reason enough to leave their system in a mod and not in the core of Arma.

The slot system used by ArmA is artificial and somewhat arbitrary. So is the volume/weight system used by ACE to drive their stamina system. Don't quibble this point, I helped code the thing and know more of the internal details than many here. Those that follow ACE also know the stamina system has gone through numerous attempts to tune the thresholds and effects, it's been a struggle at curve-fitting for a long time. Those that love ACE recognise/accept those facts and enjoy the appearance of enhanced reality. Those that do not like ACE find the occasional oddity in stamina effects highly irrating and for them a potential game-wrecker.

The point is that both methods are abstractions and in their own way both good and bad models of reality. Neither is superior to the other, just different. Let's leave the choice as it is, a choice - so that those that love one way or another can be happy at the flip of a switch.

[galzohar 31]

I don't think anyone here was saying ACE stamina system is a good solution nor should be a part of the game. More like saying that the ACE disposable launcher system should be a part of the game and is the best that can be done without totally fixing the aspect of the engine that prevents ACE from making a better stamina system.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Then let me be the first then ;) ACE stamina system is a good solution and should be included in the game, if the next game provides better punishment methods than ACE had to choose (like variable animation/movement speeds). There, I said it :) Not using ACE2 yet in OA, but always in Arma2 and ACE1 for Arma1, and not once did I experience the stamina problems everybody is screaming about, unless debugging and trying to get that punishment.

The 6 slot system isn't ideal, but at least it provides some kind of balance. While with ACE the user himself can control that balance. Adding disposables without having a stamina/encumbrance system to act as a penalty system to achieve that balance, is in my view bad for a game oriented towards realism. There will be addons that removes this penalty or increases it, but only if it's present in the vanilla game to begin with. ACE has shown that it is hard to achieve the best results when the system underneath doesn't allow them to include the best possible ways. I'm sure they would have gone for a different penalty method if they could, but all suggestions I've seen typically ends with "the engine doesn't allow this".

If it was up to me, for Arma3, I'd redesign the whole container, slot, and inventory system from ground up. For me, it doesn't make sense that non SAW gunners is able to carry 200rnd box mags on the body at all. I'd base it on a general unit type, where everything else is based on how you equip that model in the game. From what helmet/hat you carry, glasses even, to bandoliers, vests, and harnesses, all the way to gloves, kneepads and even identification strips/marks. But as I said above, that kills backwards compatibility. Wasn't that a big issue from OFP to Arma1 or Arma1 to Arma2? Lack of proper sample models doesn't help either.

In the game we get the possibility to carry 12 x 30 rounds, on the body, if we choose to. Thats 360 rounds. On the body. Have anyone actually seen such a loadout in real life? When I served we got 4 x 20 rounds, on the body, 80 rounds (7.62 though). To me, it would be better if those first 6 slots was actually reserved for the weapon you have, and could not hold anything else. 200rnd box mags for SAW gunners would go here (3 mags), and anything additional ammo carried by others would have to be 100rnd version but would have to be carried in the other 6 slots. But you could have only a maximum of 6 slots on body reserved for rifle ammo, the remaining 6 being reserved for 100rnd SAW boxes, MAAWS rockets, missiles, and grenades and similar specialized equipment.

I want to be able to give my units decent amount of supplies, but I don't want them to be able to equip so much that Rambo would get envious :) Logistics is a real task in real warfare, maybe even the biggest task. Pay more attention to logistics while playing than to how much you can carry. In a well designed mission, even the retreat to restock part will be kept interesting. In the coolest game experience I've had to date (other than big coop campaigns), we spent three hours just getting to the AO.

So I'll blame several things:

* Limits in the game engine, preventing best possible addons to cure the problem.

* Game itself should have had better solutions in the first place.

* Incredibly impatient players, who won't play if it's not instant action.

* Problematic mission designs, that fails to make dead space/time interesting.

Conclusion:

Very often you can't just add this and that and everything will be fine, because it may not, and often it will make other matters even worse. I often get the feeling that people making suggestions doesn't even think about the consequences about what they're asking. Now, if many of these suggestions was related to normal games, like CoD or thereabouts, I wouldn't mind so much, because at least those games tends to have alternatives. But this game has no alternatives. Once this game becomes a CoD game with sandbox capabilities (with many of the suggestions I've seen, we'd be heading straight for it), it ceases to exist for me. I'd much rather have CoD or FarCry get true sandbox capabilities. What's the point of having and wanting a realistic game, when you don't want to use it like that? Now I don't mind possibilities to do this or that, but not at the cost of not being able to do it the realistic way, and even vanilla should strive for realism. There are endless possibilities to make something less realistic. But there are limits to what would be acceptable and possible as more realistic, which is clearly shown with the ACE stamina issue.

[galzohar 31]

Something like this? Of course they also intend to make you get tired based on how heavy your gear is and actually have your sprinting speed affected by weight, and I doubt their jogging speed will be the 20km/h Arma 2 features... Too bad they don't actually have any funding to actually get the game out in the near future.

A lot of people hate the ACE system because it simply doesn't get the cost/reward in the right places to truly encourage realistic behavior. IRL carrying heavy gear affects long treks, yeah, but more importantly it affects your ability to sprint fast from cover to cover in any terrain and be more agile in CQB fights. In ACE heavy gear affects long jogs and that's it, and usually simply forces you to take a rest every once in a while and right before you reach the engagement area even if you carry a 40kg loadout, and not really get any noticeable effect in actual combat if you play it right, so the system is mostly annoyance and very weak in the realism boosting sense. Unfortunately there probably isn't anything they can do better in this regard, and at least it does prevent you from carrying around some truly crazy amounts of gear.

In the current engine, though, making disposable launchers need no ammo and be actually disposable is much better than the vanilla system with ammo taking 1/2 the inventory.

As for Arma, you can only do so much with a slot system. You need weight to have a real and noticeable effect on maneuverability in multiple ways.

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

Well, as CG said. Its about logistics.

IRL you wouldnt sprint from cover to

cover. IRL youd have op's. Meetingpoints.

If you expext to run into enemy you make

a stash at the latest OP. Move forward, engage

the enemy, return to stash and pick up your gear

then continue with mission. THIS GAME IS NOT

BATTLEFIELD!!

Planing and orientation is crusial components.

Ofc there are other ways to design the mission.

Thats why i would like a ONE unit editor.

And the player it self decide what roll it have.

The invenyory is like a sildier with clickable

areas. Ie pant pockets, jacket pockets. West with

pouches. Rucksack. "back" (launcher) etc etc.

Main issue!!Weight!!...

[jw custom 56]

Dunno why this thread has turned into a ACE discussion.

SMAW + 3 rounds is taking up 6 ammo slots, 1 RPG-18 is taking up same space. There's no reason for selecting the RPG-18.

Making M136, RPG-18 and similars preloaded/disposable would make them more attractive.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Sure there is. If it's the only launcher you'll get if you're not on some special AT team.

@galzohar:

Yeah, something like that... Pretty sweet... :p

[jw custom 56]

Sure there is. If it's the only launcher you'll get if you're not on some special AT team.

yeah lol thats like choose a vehicle to go to war with but you'll have to carry it on your back because it got no gas. The options are:

1. M1 Abrams

2. Bicycle

P.S. the weight and fill the same!

Seriously though, why would i as a mission maker give a unit a RPG-18 when a SMAW + 1 round takes up 4 less ammo slots. I would give a unit a RPG-18 because it's compact and therefore not take up to much space.

Theres no balance there!

[galzohar 31]

If the only reason for you to take an M136 is because you have no other options, you could also just pre-equip everyone with less ammo with the disposable launcher system (and then you will actually be able to give them more than just 6 magazines or 5 magazines and a grenade). When you make a mission you don't have to fill up all 12 inventory slots if you consider that imbalanced/unrealistic.

When you look at the overall picture, there are a lot more situations where a disposable launcher behaves more realistically than situations where the 1/2-inventory-launcher does. Really no reason to keep the current system other than the lack of will to use a script/mod to fix it and lack of will from BIS to fix it.

[jw custom 56]

If the only reason for you to take an M136 is because you have no other options, you could also just pre-equip everyone with less ammo with the disposable launcher system (and then you will actually be able to give them more than just 6 magazines or 5 magazines and a grenade). When you make a mission you don't have to fill up all 12 inventory slots if you consider that imbalanced/unrealistic.

When you look at the overall picture, there are a lot more situations where a disposable launcher behaves more realistically than situations where the 1/2-inventory-launcher does. Really no reason to keep the current system other than the lack of will to use a script/mod to fix it and lack of will from BIS to fix it.

It has nothing to do with having "no other option". The reason i would equip a unit with a M136 or a RPG-18 would be to save ammo slots to ammo for primary weapon.

So instead of giving a unit a RPG-18/M136 i give them a SMAW with 1 round, i see no benefit in giving a RPG-18/M136.

[nyles 11]

Plus, taking a look at the damage values, both the RPG18 and M136 are weaker than (most of) their respective reloadable counterparts.

BIS, please look into this. We need AT weapon game balance.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

So instead of giving a unit a RPG-18/M136 i give them a SMAW with 1 round, i see no benefit in giving a RPG-18/M136.

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.

If you go hard core and loose the mission when you've spent your two SMAW shots, that is probably ok (as long as you're already willing to give them a zoomed scope, with night vision capability I might add). But it won't work on persistent missions for pubbers where you have some freedom but don't want every man to be a walking tank killer. I tried various ways to restrict access to M136 ammo in Arma1, but players were just too inventive for me to find ways around them.

From wiki, on M136:

It is intended to give infantry units a means to destroy or disable armored vehicles and fortifications, although it is not generally sufficient to defeat a modern main battle tank (MBT).

Effective range: 300 m (point target)

In Arma, that translates however to:

* You can defeat (crew ejects) MBTs with a single shot.

* Effective range: Pretty much infinite, the sight is the only limitation.

With a SMAW, you do get infinite range (I've killed tanks at 2000m, frigging ridiculous on its own).

That's why I want extremely limited access to reloadable launchers, but I don't want to have limits on how much M136 you can get access to, but at the same time I don't want every man to carry one so that reloadable crews have nothing to do. Also, the M136 is considered an encumbrance IRL, and the 6 slot ammo gives just that. You want additional rifle ammo for him? Let others carry it in their backpack.

Edited December 12, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[HyperU2 11]

Having it take up slots, and be reloadable, is against the realism you want. Yeah it sucks to carry but it's not the difference between six mags or twelve.

[galzohar 31]

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).

[CarlGustaffa 4]

That's precisely my point. You choose to sacrifice ammo in order to be a tank wrecking crew, but in doing so you make yourself worse infantrymen. Having two M136 in an infantry rifle squad I would consider fairly normal. You do get what you need for basic self defense, but it doesn't make you a dedicated anti tank crew.

If you only have two, you won't go on the hunt, you will avoid them like the plague. And then call in for additional support to go on the hunt. Somebody better equipped or using external support to deal with it.

I'm not saying that 6 slot ammo is the best penalty, but it's the only thing that makes sense today without any other penalty systems simulated. I have no objections to ACEs true one shot system without any visible ammo, but it also have a reasonably proper penalty system.

[Evil_Echo 11]

Rounds that use shaped charges do not care much about range as long as you manage to hit the target. That said, some of the rocket launchers do need some adjustment in the sighting-in department.

The M136 is meant to be a replacement for the LAW rocket and fill the niche for moderate fortifications and light armor. They require minimal training and can be carried in addition to other infantry weapons.

SMAW and M2/M3 Gustaf are medium weapons, harder hitting. But with costs in ammo. Having a gunner assistant is almost required unless you intend to one-shot these systems.

Javeling is the heavy anti-armor weapon. Basically you should need a dedicated 2-man team to operate this. A vehicle for transport is also recommended.

[galzohar 31]

I don't see why limiting the numbers of SMAW launchers is OK for you, but limiting the number of M136 launchers is not. Just limit the amounts of both to what you consider reasonable, rather than needing some weird limitation like 1/2 an inventory filled up.

If BIS aren't going to fix the stamina system, though, they could at least make the fact you are using the launcher slot cost you 2 inventory slots as well. Not as ammo, just block out these slots as long as you have a launcher. If they then reduce the javelin to something like 3-5 slots, and keep smaw rounds the same, there will actually be a point to having a "team" for those things, since whether you're carrying a launcher or not will actually matter.

Of course this still will be far from perfect - There's really no getting away from needing a true stamina system with direct effect to movement ability (much better and much more realistic than the current ACE implementation which doesn't actually affect your speed directly because it's simply not possible) - At least if you really want some realism when it comes to gear choices. Anything less and you'll have some serious flaws of realism no matter how hard you try to make it work in a balanced way.