Tank Questions & Hopes

[scrim 1]

Not really good at all. When the 88mm on a Tiger doesn't knock out a Sherman, as in get it to stop moving and crew bailing with 1-2 hits in the middle of the hull, and the 75mm on the Sherman penetrates the Tiger's armour from the front, something is just horribly badly done.

Long story shot, Iron Front's penetration system was, and is way over sold. It doesn't work even remotely realistic.

[slatts 1978]

The mortar and troops are possible, of course the question is will they do it, as for armour values..probably not, but one hopes

[scrim 1]

Honestly, if they don't make them capable of troop transport, they've missed out on a defining part of the Merkava tank. It'd be like making an Abrams and not care about advanced optics, weapons and armour.

[nodunit 397]

Well the loader in the M1A2 was seen as a passenger so perhaps they just make several passengers.

Edited April 8, 2013 by NodUnit

[maturin 12]

Not really good at all. When the 88mm on a Tiger doesn't knock out a Sherman, as in get it to stop moving and crew bailing with 1-2 hits in the middle of the hull, and the 75mm on the Sherman penetrates the Tiger's armour from the front, something is just horribly badly done.

Long story shot, Iron Front's penetration system was, and is way over sold. It doesn't work even remotely realistic.

That's probably a question of config and balance, rather than problems with the system itself.

Although IF's system is also from a very simple era, before there was ERA, ceramic armor, DU penetrators and secrecy.

[seamusgod 1]

Not really good at all. When the 88mm on a Tiger doesn't knock out a Sherman, as in get it to stop moving and crew bailing with 1-2 hits in the middle of the hull, and the 75mm on the Sherman penetrates the Tiger's armour from the front, something is just horribly badly done.

Long story shot, Iron Front's penetration system was, and is way over sold. It doesn't work even remotely realistic.

would you say it was due to an inherent flaw in the way the engine calculates armor penetration and deflection? it seems the engine never really had anything more complex than hitpoints.

[h - 169]

Iron Front system is a scripted "gimmick" instead of any actual engine feature (as far as I can tell, obviously I can be wrong..). So it giving sometimes odd results is quite likely given the fact that scripting in A2 engine (and in A3 so it seems) is treated as secondary in CPU priority, at best.

[.kju 3245]

Doesn't ACE have essentially the same system as IF?

[LJF 0]

;2367657']Doesn't ACE have essentially the same system as IF?

ACE worked really well, or at least it gave the impression it was working really well; which is almost as good :D

[scrim 1]

;2367657']Doesn't ACE have essentially the same system as IF?

TBH, ACE does it better than IF. A comparison I read was something along the lines of "in IF, you can hit an enemy tank and put it on fire and it'll still be alive. In ACE, you can hit a an enemy tank and knock it out without putting it on fire. One of the two is clearly more realistic."

[Tonci87 163]

My take on this:

If "Men of War" wich is a strategy game that doesn´t really try to simulate anything can do this, then Arma wich calls itself a mil sim (don´t arue, it´s written on the damn box!) really should be able to do it too.

Men of war has a great penetration system. Everything is taken into account.

Roundtype and caliber

distance

angle of hit

armor

If you shot all this is taken into account to determine if the shell penetrates the armor or not. If it doesn´t it will bounce off and might even kill something else if it has still enough kinetic energy to do so. You can also use this for trick shots. Shoot at a thick wall to make your shell deflect and kill something around the next corner.

If the shell has enough energy to penetrate the armor of the traget it will make it´s way through it, damaging or destroying systems and crewmembers. It might even exit on the other side and kill something behind it.

You can shot of parts on a tank. The Stug for example is very hard to penetrate from the front and it has armor plates on the sides. You can destroy those armor plates individualy If your shot destroys one of those plates then your next shot might penetrate the armor of the tank if you hit where the plate has been.

A great realistic System in a RTS.

A flawed HP based system in a mil Sim FPS.

I think it should be the other way around

[On_Sabbatical 11]

I think that the comment above is the final word for this thread :D

[Variable 322]

Interiors are important if the Merkava passenger compartment is added. Or else, what will infantry players see when riding in the tank?

[Yairweinberg 1]

Interiors are important if the Merkava passenger compartment is added. Or else, what will infantry players see when riding in the tank?

A tank is firstly a tank the Merkavas passenger thing is a not the primary reason they made the tank in the first place because in the end of the day its still a tank and suppose to have an effective armor and an effective gun.

[scrim 1]

Yeah, and in the dimension of being just another tank, what seperates the Merkava from other tanks? Pretty much nothing at all. The troop carrying capability though...

[[evo] dan 79]

they might just blag the merkava and say they put extra radios/carried the extra ammo in there. But hopefully they will add space for infantry.

I do think IF's damage system was pretty good, except in its dlc where they set the damage up stupidly. Maybe it was to try and balance the Americans since they only had shermans? But at least it (and ACE) points to what can be done with the arma engine.

[Binkowski 26]

http://www.abload.de/img/327203_23071675030839x3i95.jpg

The rail guns are coming...

[MasterDon 10]

http://www.abload.de/img/327203_23071675030839x3i95.jpg

The rail guns are coming...

I personally don't really like the design on that tank's gun, but a railgun does sound cool, and probably realistic for the tiem period being that we are working on such technology. You're kidding about it being implemented I presume.

[nodunit 397]

Nope, it's a super weapon tank wherein the ammo storage is filled with a miniature nuclear reactor.

[Blaf 1]

I think that the comment above is the final word for this thread :D

Exactly my thoughts :D

[kremator 1065]

Just have a full and accurate system as a DLC?

[Tonci87 163]

Just have a full and accurate system as a DLC?

Only if it´s a free DLC aka patch.

This series will be doomed if BIS starts charging money for gameplay enchantements

EDIT: And even adding it after release would be an extremely bad idea since it would destroy most of the already available missions with armor in it.

Even the usual "BIS has too few men to pull this" "BIS is a small studio" of excuses can´t be applied here. Men of War was developed by a smaller team.

The whole Armor system has basically stayed the same since OFP with only minor improvements. It is about time they change something.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Tonci87

[Alwarren 2767]

A tank is firstly a tank the Merkavas passenger thing is a not the primary reason they made the tank in the first place because in the end of the day its still a tank and suppose to have an effective armor and an effective gun.

I am not sure what the one has to do with the other. The original Merkava tank can carry infantry, and if the one in the game can carry infantry as well, then it will have to have a Cargo View. Whether that is a tank, an APC or a pickp truck doesn't change that. In the same vein you could argue an APC is mainly made for carrying personal, some still have a turret and a gun, and a pretty big one too.

[Yairweinberg 1]

I am not sure what the one has to do with the other. The original Merkava tank can carry infantry, and if the one in the game can carry infantry as well, then it will have to have a Cargo View. Whether that is a tank, an APC or a pickp truck doesn't change that. In the same vein you could argue an APC is mainly made for carrying personal, some still have a turret and a gun, and a pretty big one too.

If you would take the time to look at the other comments you would see people said they rather have an interior and troop carrying capability rather than a good armor system that's why I made that comment.