General Discussion (dev branch)

[metalcraze 290]

It seems superior to the T-100 IMO, looks better, has a coaxial MG for the gunner as well as a commander HMG

There are MGs present for both T-100 commander and gunner in this update

However both T-100 and MBT-52 share 120mm cannon, exactly the same SABOT and HEAT ammo as well as exactly the same amount of it (32 / 16). Same goes for MG ammo (2000).

MBT-52 also has FLIR for both its gunner and commander just like T-100 and no night vision just like T-100. The only difference is MBT-52 having worse armor.

I was hoping BIS would put at least some effort into a supposedly new tank not copy-paste it again?

[semiconductor 309]

The new vehicles are a great addions.

Heh, they are so new that I already saw them in BAF. Retroactive effect I guess. :)

By the way, green version of Hellcat have just disgusting textures, even Arma 1 had better ones, seriously. Same problem with armed variant but dirt is less noticeable on bright camo.

Better than nothing but definitely not "quality over quantity". Kuma and Mora is ok though.

[Primarch 10]

The T-34-85, a mid WW2 medium tank being worthless against MBTs is a fact, not balancing.

The fact that it can not deal any real damage even though you shoot an M1A2 in the engine department is balancing.

It's lower tier vehicle.

[kuIoodporny 45]

There are MGs present for both T-100 commander and gunner in this update

However both T-100 and MBT-52 share 120mm cannon, exactly the same SABOT and HEAT ammo as well as exactly the same amount of it (32 / 16). Same goes for MG ammo (2000).

MBT-52 also has FLIR for both its gunner and commander just like T-100 and no night vision just like T-100. The only difference is MBT-52 having worse armor.

I was hoping BIS would put at least some effort into a supposedly new tank not copy-paste it again?

Please enlighten us with details of how night vision mode works in MBT gunner primary sights across the world since last two decades. Also, what difference is between real world counterparts of tanks present in the game, and how would you implement these differences ingame.

I personally think the 120mm cannon in config of T-100 is going to be replaced with different cannon.

Edited November 28, 2013 by zGuba
quote missing

[Varanon 892]

I think all tanks should do the same if we don't know the specs. That's for good for PVP gameplay such as Wasteland.

T-34-85 is completely useless against any tank above its power level in A2, which is not realistic. That's balancing.

That's kind of the point. In reality, armies are hardly symmetric. Just look at WW2: Germans had far superior tanks, British had better planes, initially, the French tanks ruled everything and so on.

The fact that we have three factions with essentially the same equipment and level of equipment is "balancing" indeed, for game modes like Wasteland. However, it is a purely artificial symmetry that you would never ever find in real armies. Sure, you can compare one superpower to the other, like, the US and Russia has similar tanks, but even those have (severe) differences.

My main gripe is the artificial nature of the balancing, down to the loadout and even the names of the different soldier classes. The medics are all called combat life saver, regardless of faction. Gone are the "Bonesetters", "Medics", "Corpsmen" and all other variants. That IS artificial and takes away from the immersion, and makes all armies basically the same with different paint.

[Bouben 3]

There are MGs present for both T-100 commander and gunner in this update

However both T-100 and MBT-52 share 120mm cannon, exactly the same SABOT and HEAT ammo as well as exactly the same amount of it (32 / 16). Same goes for MG ammo (2000).

MBT-52 also has FLIR for both its gunner and commander just like T-100 and no night vision just like T-100. The only difference is MBT-52 having worse armor.

I was hoping BIS would put at least some effort into a supposedly new tank not copy-paste it again?

I don't see what is your problem with the identical ammunition.

Would you be more satisfied if both tanks had different names for their ammo (but same ammo properties)? Or you want to cripple down one side and make it less powerful than the other just for the sake of having some diversity? I don't get it.

[runekn 3]

The fact that it can not deal any real damage even though you shoot an M1A2 in the engine department is balancing.

It's lower tier vehicle.

Pretty sure it's still a fact

Source: http://drakhl.blogspot.dk/2009/03/tank-duel-modern-vs-wwii.html

[progamer 14]

Why was the middle row if seats removed on the "new" helicopters armed version? Makes no sense.

[2nd ranger 282]

I like the new guerrilla uniforms, the FIA and civilians were lacking a little in variety, a few more versions would always be good (particularly civilians wearing something other than shorts and a t shirt). The new faces look pretty good too, you handsome devils!

Edited November 28, 2013 by 2nd Ranger

[Smurf 12]

Why was the middle row if seats removed on the "new" helicopters armed version? Makes no sense.

Less weight.

Dunno, it looks cooler. Wish the Ghosthawk had a similar version.

Also, some new hats huh?

[progamer 14]

Less weight.

Dunno, it looks cooler. Wish the Ghosthawk had a similar version.

Also, some new hats huh?

Looks<Functionality <--- isn't this how militaries think?

[Electricleash 133]

Laser designator is now consistent with other binocular types and could be lowered

Good to see this finally brought up to spec, but there is still this texture issue to resolve, one I posted back in August.

[defk0n_NL 2]

I like the new guerrilla uniforms, the FIA and civilians were lacking a little in variety, a few more versions would always be good (particularly civilians wearing something other than shorts and a t shirt). The new faces look pretty good too, you handsome devils!

whatt class name?

[becubed 24]

Looks<Functionality <--- isn't this how militaries think?

Not always. In a book I read about the US Skunk Works and the design of the original stealth fighter, they mentioned that they designed a low observable aircraft carrier to present to the navy. It looked a bit like "Darth Vaders helmet" apparently. It was canned with the observation that no Admiral would be seen dead on a ship that looked like that.

[defk0n_NL 2]

The door opening is my biggest problem (along with difficulties to use ladders and stuff like that).

I mean it should be simple. The game can already detect if a bullet you shoot hits the door or not. So just use an action button that when you press it, it shoots an invisible bullet with no damage and no penetration (and not affected by gravity) and if that bullet hits a door that is close enough to you, it will open.

We should never have problems with interacting with doors because it is so simple in real life. Dyslexi video explains it all very well.

Yes but besides that i think their is a inherit design flaw in the way arma handles these actions.

I am pretty sure that there either exists a event ontop of the objects bounding box or the player loops for nearby objects in his vicinity.

Either way is redundant (although it might not make much difference on performance)

I am actually working on a prototype of a proposed fix.

Besides seeming more logical it also opens itself up for more actions per object without clutter, as shown in the top section of the diagram below.

diagram for illustration, bottom one is my best guess at how arma detects actions, maybe bis can elaborate for educational purposes.

Edited November 29, 2013 by defk0n_NL

[nicolasroger 11]

It looks like a nice solution to me. It would still be possible to board a car as driver or in the back seat quickly without fear of blowing your satchel or changing weapon. (Assuming the common rose only include actions related to the object). It would need a defaut action in the middle so that you can simply tap the action key to open a door without having to move your mouse around the rose.

A second key could be used in the same way for weapon related stuff like selecting weapons and changing ammo. (with on side of the rose marked as "change ammo" that would expend to all the different ammo type on you that fit the gun you have in your hands). Maybe even the explosive charge could be detonated from the rose by expending a side called "detonator" or something like that and then selecting the type of explosive you want to blow if you have different one placed on the ground. ("blow up satchel charge" or "blow up explosive charge" for exemple)

Holding action key would show the menu like you said, but release it would make a selection (no need to click please!)

Edited November 29, 2013 by nicolasroger

[jgbtl292 0]

camo on the kuma is a little to big In contrast to the other vehikles ;)

---------- Post added at 07:33 ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 ----------

zguba

Please enlighten us with details of how night vision mode works in MBT gunner primary sights across the world since last two decades. Also, what difference is between real world counterparts of tanks present in the game, and how would you implement these differences ingame.

I personally think the 120mm cannon in config of T-100 is going to be replaced with different cannon.

i think what he mean is the different in the detail ( in the game has all only a differ ends look ( the weapon stations not he all the same on all sides - BAD ) - that give no immersion- all tanks are the same with only a differend look - the little different make the gameplay. example. you slammer can carry a group of soldiers- sure normal with this space in his back he has only a ammo load for main gun 10 rounds !

for this tank was nice a inventory more space or more ammo ;) this give gameplay and tactics ;9 and more ap or more he rounds .

a tank with a autoloader your black eagle aka t-100 has normal a 125mm and not a 120 mm ;9 he has a autoloader and can the barrel not make full up - the kuma or slammer can this ;) thats gives little difference in the combat and in the follow in the gameplay.

a inventory for fighting vehicles for ammo load oder space or ammo ( slammer ) was a very nice feature in the future.

the other tank can turn the turret faster the other slower - i mean we have wiki all the dates are here. thats all little thinks he make the game round.

the other tank has phosphor rounds the other not. th one can shot he nades with his defence fog shooters the other has this feature not. the one can diving -the other not ;) not the missing interior is the main point - the point is the little differences. or the terrible driver view ^^ why not a driver place with 3 holes and we can turn the head. ad the rearcams in this first person sight for the driver. and for the kommander a digital map . ( the black gps is ... the arma 2 was better. i can not see good see my pos with this black and lines only ^^ or water or not ? no different wood near or not ? cant see ...... and 2035 a map where can i show my own tanks apc ^^ all time without the low or profi level.

this is missing ;9 and later maby hunter killer for commander - makes the the place a litte more interest than only looking

Edited November 29, 2013 by JgBtl292

[2nd ranger 282]

whatt class name?

Can't check right now but you can find them in the config viewer under cfgWeapons. One is called something like U_BG_ResistanceLeader, the other is like U_BG_Story_Protagonist. Or look in the FIA Story characters in the editor, one is worn by 'Resistance leader placeholder' and one is worn by 'Stavrou'.

[Tonci87 163]

That's kind of the point. In reality, armies are hardly symmetric. Just look at WW2: Germans had far superior tanks, British had better planes, initially, the French tanks ruled everything and so on.

The fact that we have three factions with essentially the same equipment and level of equipment is "balancing" indeed, for game modes like Wasteland. However, it is a purely artificial symmetry that you would never ever find in real armies. Sure, you can compare one superpower to the other, like, the US and Russia has similar tanks, but even those have (severe) differences.

My main gripe is the artificial nature of the balancing, down to the loadout and even the names of the different soldier classes. The medics are all called combat life saver, regardless of faction. Gone are the "Bonesetters", "Medics", "Corpsmen" and all other variants. That IS artificial and takes away from the immersion, and makes all armies basically the same with different paint.

One of my main problems with Arma 3. It doesn't really matter wich faction you pick, they all have basically the same stuff. Thanks to people like that one who thinks Arma 2 is a lesser game because NAPA isn t balanced against USMC FPDR

Use different tactics if your faction is weaker.

[Primarch 10]

Pretty sure it's still a fact

Source: http://drakhl.blogspot.dk/2009/03/tank-duel-modern-vs-wwii.html

I mean the only way that I could compete with my friend at a duel with a T-34-85 against a TUSK is to shoot his barrel dead, then just go behind him and slug away some ten shells into the engine before he was disabled.

I am sure that the abrams does not have over 100mm thick metal radiators over the engines.

It's much better when you can actually deal damage if you see them first.

That's tactics, that's realism.

I think that the only differences should be that the higher tier tanks should move faster and have better optics/ shell velocity/ better sensory systems.

Especially sensory systems and other electronics should be the main focus on the future tanks, since no realistic amount of armor is going to save you from current 120mm shells.

It's all about who sees first.

[ScratcH334 10]

It's nice to see new vehicles and weapons being added but why did you have to give the AAF a tank and an attack helicopter? I thought the whole point of the AAF was that they were a rather small force like the Armed Forces of Malta. Now we have almost 3 identical factions... only thing missing are the jets for both BLUFOR and OPFOR...

[Tonci87 163]

i mean the only way that i could compete with my friend at a duel with a t-34-85 against a tusk is to shoot his barrel dead, then just go behind him and slug away some ten shells into the engine before he was disabled.

I am sure that the abrams does not have over 100mm thick metal radiators over the engines.

It's much better when you can actually deal damage if you see them first.

That's tactics, that's realism.

I think that the only differences should be that the higher tier tanks should move faster and have better optics/ shell velocity/ better sensory systems.

Especially sensory systems and other electronics should be the main focus on the future tanks, since no realistic amount of armor is going to save you from current 120mm shells.

It's all about who sees first.

No FPDR

[christianmo 10]

Might not be a new feature at all, but it seems you are able to disable booth the slammers and the kumas mg turret with small arms fire. If you empty about 2 clips of 6.5 mm at close range the turret will either become immobilized or lose the ability to control elevation. I really like this, but it the icing on the cake would be if you could damage the optics as well :)

[runekn 3]

I mean the only way that I could compete with my friend at a duel with a T-34-85 against a TUSK is to shoot his barrel dead, then just go behind him and slug away some ten shells into the engine before he was disabled.

I am sure that the abrams does not have over 100mm thick metal radiators over the engines.

It's much better when you can actually deal damage if you see them first.

That's tactics, that's realism.

I think that the only differences should be that the higher tier tanks should move faster and have better optics/ shell velocity/ better sensory systems.

Especially sensory systems and other electronics should be the main focus on the future tanks, since no realistic amount of armor is going to save you from current 120mm shells.

It's all about who sees first.

You're right that pretty much nothing has changed in the SIZE of shells. But the behaviour has changed significant, allowing for more penetration without increasing size, different countries produce different types of shells, changing properties.

Also, you're talking like modern tanks are still using solid metals. Again, the same as above. Changed Behaviour and technology has allowed for much better protection, differing from tank to tank.

I think that the only differences should be that the higher tier tanks should move faster and have better optics/ shell velocity/ better sensory systems.

nonononononono, please no

[blackjacktom 10]

It's nice to see new vehicles and weapons being added but why did you have to give the AAF a tank and an attack helicopter? I thought the whole point of the AAF was that they were a rather small force like the Armed Forces of Malta. Now we have almost 3 identical factions... only thing missing are the jets for both BLUFOR and OPFOR...

Agreed.

I'm pretty sure Malta just uses trucks and 4WDs.