General Discussion (dev branch)

[Callsign 128]

Amazing work BIS! An excellent DLC to end on! Really looking forward to the campaign!

[Tankbuster 1746]

2 hours ago, zukov said:

the cherry on top would be a Kord and static version of spg9 / gimlet etc etc (and t72b3 for guerrilla)

I'd give a testicle to have a D-30.

[bars91 956]

7 minutes ago, Tankbuster said:

I'd give a testicle to have a D-30.

 

Which would be literally useless without a towing function.

 

In modern (and future?) combat, static arty is dead arty.

 

That being written, a Gorgon(?) based heavy mortar carrier for AAF conventional support role would be a nice "common ground" between the infantry mortar and the 230mm MRLS.

[lex__1 422]

35 minutes ago, odie0351 said:

So please, enlighten us as to where BI has gone astray here.

The failure at the very beginning of the release of Arma3. The absence of the Russian faction, in its place CSAT. CSAT with Russian tanks, and NATO with Israeli tanks.

The failure at the very beginning of the release of Arma3. The absence of the Russian faction, in its place CSAT. CSAT with Russian tanks, and NATO with Israeli tanks.
I do not blame the creative view of things, but fans of Abrams and the confrontation "west / east" lost a lot.

[Tankbuster 1746]

Just now, bars91 said:

 

Which would be literally useless without a towing function.

 

In modern (and future?) combat, static arty is dead arty.

 

That being written, a Gorgon(?) based heavy mortar carrier for AAF conventional support role would be a nice "common ground" between the infantry mortar and the 230mm MRLS.

Perhaps, but back in the good old days (of Arrowhead) the two things being yelled over comms guaranteed to strike fear into every player was "Kamov" and "D-30". And I miss that. :)

[bars91 956]

4 minutes ago, lex__1 said:

The failure at the very beginning of the release of Arma3. The absence of the Russian faction, in its place CSAT. CSAT with Russian tanks, and NATO with Israeli tanks.

 

While I'm very much a realism person, I disagree on having russian faction as a valid point in this argument.

 

CSAT just gives more creative freedom to mix stuff (like is currently the case in modern combat zones other then RU/US involved).

 

Also, while I enjoy mods like RHS and VTN, I'm just generally tired of shooting M4A1s and AK74s while trying not to get blown up by an M1(insert cold war/current mod number) Abrams or T72Mwhatever for the millionth time in gaming history.

[eriktrak 76]

1 hour ago, KizzouUl said:

Fake ? Or real ? Because it's a part of Aegis Mod...

 

Real. It's on the dev-branch. 

[danny96 80]

M270 for those who are wondering -

Bohemia's version (left), Aegis version (right)

[dragon01 902]

Yeah, the AAF MLRS is pretty great. Would that be possible to also add a CSAT variant? They make use of the Zamak, as well.

 

As for the vehicles, I like them. T-140 could use a tube-launched missile, otherwise it's pretty great, I love the Armata design. The NATO tank destroyer is also nice, the ATGM was a real surprise, and it appears to work really well. The expansion of the AAF roster is especially great, the weapons carrier adds several types of vehicle which AAF was missing. The AA works quite well, while the AT variant sounds nice, but appears to be rather ineffective against actual tanks, even in top attack mode. Recon looks really cool, especially combined with the AA variant, and the autocannon variant doesn't really appear to offer much over the APC and the IFV, both of which boast superior armament (although there might be mobility advantage that I overlooked).

 

The weapons are a cool addition, especially light AT. CSAT got a Metis-style SACLOS missile, which is currently underpowered (especially with its lack of top attack options) given the increased difficulty in operating it. I was able to disarm a tank, but even from behind, a standard "Heavy AT" soldier couldn't kill it. SPG-9 should also be a little more effective against tanks from behind, PG-9 rounds are pretty substantial and low velocity isn't a problem with HEAT. Hopefully this will get addressed with further improvements to the armor system.

[Fl3rian 149]

1 minute ago, dragon01 said:

Would that be possible to also add a CSAT variant? They make use of the Zamak, as well.

Already exist. There's a hex-camo for this.

[lex__1 422]

23 minutes ago, bars91 said:

While I'm very much a realism person, I disagree on having russian faction as a valid point in this argument.

 

CSAT just gives more creative freedom to mix stuff (like is currently the case in modern combat zones other then RU/US involved).

 

Also, while I enjoy mods like RHS and VTN, I'm just generally tired of shooting M4A1s and AK74s while trying not to get blown up by an M1(insert cold war/current mod number) Abrams or T72Mwhatever for the millionth time in gaming history.

Mods is a separate story. I think that the expectations of players in vanilla - that each faction was to receive a new MBT. CSAT will have three MBTs after the release of DLC.

[dragon01 902]

2 minutes ago, Fl3rian said:

Already exist. There's a hex-camo for this.

It should be an actual unit on that side. Seeing as adding it would be mostly config work at this point (and that the vehicle isn't in the changelog), it may be planned already.

[odie0351 67]

 

25 minutes ago, lex__1 said:

The failure at the very beginning of the release of Arma3. The absence of the Russian faction, in its place CSAT. CSAT with Russian tanks, and NATO with Israeli tanks.

The failure at the very beginning of the release of Arma3. The absence of the Russian faction, in its place CSAT. CSAT with Russian tanks, and NATO with Israeli tanks.
I do not blame the creative view of things, but fans of Abrams and the confrontation "west / east" lost a lot.

I kindve agree with you in that I hate the premise of the vanilla NATO faction, I'm not always intimately familiar with eastern weapon systems and vehicles so I don't harbor any particular disliking of CSAT though. I can't stand how NATO was supposed to be this advanced primarily American force that for some reason used modern Israeli armored vehicles. While I understand why they went the way they did I do disagree with it. If anything they should have given FIA the merkava and it's variants and went for futuristic American or other western tank designs. But it's too late for that to be changed now, at least in ARMA 3. 

[scavenjer 112]

34 minutes ago, lex__1 said:

The failure at the very beginning of the release of Arma3. The absence of the Russian faction, in its place CSAT. CSAT with Russian tanks, and NATO with Israeli tanks.

The failure at the very beginning of the release of Arma3. The absence of the Russian faction, in its place CSAT. CSAT with Russian tanks, and NATO with Israeli tanks.
I do not blame the creative view of things, but fans of Abrams and the confrontation "west / east" lost a lot.

The US/Russia fanboys have literally every other game and the previous three games to play, IMO it's nice that we finally got rid of the stereotypical US vs RU fight with abrams and T-90s....

The current matchup IMO is very interesting and wouldn't have been seen in any other game, there's something to say about that.

[lex__1 422]

9 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

The US/Russia fanboys have literally every other game and the previous three games to play, IMO it's nice that we finally got rid of the stereotypical US vs RU fight with abrams and T-90s....

The current matchup IMO is very interesting and wouldn't have been seen in any other game, there's something to say about that.

I'm quite happy with the release of the T-140, I'm sorry for the fans of other factions, for their expectations from the release of DLC Tanks.

 

[Hvymtal 1251]

I noticed this a long time ago and never bothered to mention it until now. The NATO and CSAT crew helmets have a shiny little black thing on the front that appears to be some sort of HUD visor. Ever since I've noticed it it's become a "you cannot unsee" sort of thing and it's really bothered me. When I saw "Added Crew Helmet" I was really hoping we would get a version of the helmet with this visor lowered but unfortunately that was not the case. It would be a relatively simple remodel of an existing asset, would it still be possible to do something along these lines in the time between now and release? 

[lex__1 422]

3 minutes ago, Hvymtal said:

I noticed this a long time ago and never bothered to mention it until now. The NATO and CSAT crew helmets have a shiny little black thing on the front that appears to be some sort of HUD visor. Ever since I've noticed it it's become a "you cannot unsee" sort of thing and it's really bothered me. When I saw "Added Crew Helmet" I was really hoping we would get a version of the helmet with this visor lowered but unfortunately that was not the case. It would be a relatively simple remodel of an existing asset, would it still be possible to do something along these lines in the time between now and release?

You probably did not play on servers that use a tactical HUD.
But it does not work the way you saw it with these helmets, but it's also an alternative.

[Hvymtal 1251]

I'm sorry, I was talking about the actual model itself, not the actual graphical user interface

This is more what I'm proposing

 

From this

 

To this

 

Besides, this could help pad the content list a bit and make the DLC an easier sell. Plus, you'll look like fucking Judge Dredd. Nothing wrong with that

[SuicideKing 233]

oukej, asheara, kllrt, reyhard and everyone else working tirelessly on Tanks - holy shit this was way more than I expected, it looks great, thank you! Couldn't have asked for more. Absolutely splendid! 

[Hvymtal 1251]

Oh yeah, can we celebrate that NATO FINALLY has an unguided launcher similar in purpose to the RPG-42? I mean holy moly it's only been 5 years XD

 

 

 

 

I want my judge dredd helmet so bad

[Alwarren 2767]

2 hours ago, SzepyCZ said:

i´m f****** done, TANKS dlc with 1 tank and 2x piece of trash, bravo, there goes my last expectation of you being able to develop atleast something properly, well this confirms my statement about csat having 2x+ better equipment then nato/aaf counterparts

 

While I share the disappointment that the TankS DLC only contains one tank (I really would have liked to see a new NATO tank like a Challenger 2 for CTRG), there are ways to voice your opinion without such hyperbole. I would have wished for more tanks, but the Wiesel has a very specific role and it is an ideal vehicle to go along with a tank column, plus the new armour systems are definitely worth it.

 

I'd also would have liked to see some love for FIA, in the way of some old soviet equipment like a BMP-2 or BRDM-2. But frankly, the DLC doesn't even cost 10 Euros. While you can always want for more, there isn't really much basis to demand it.

 

P.S. I like the new AAF Artillery. 

[NikkoJT 58]

10 minutes ago, Alwarren said:

 

While I share the disappointment that the TankS DLC only contains one tank (I really would have liked to see a new NATO tank like a Challenger 2 for CTRG), there are ways to voice your opinion without such hyperbole. I would have wished for more tanks, but the Wiesel has a very specific role and it is an ideal vehicle to go along with a tank column, plus the new armour systems are definitely worth it.

 

I'd also would have liked to see some love for FIA, in the way of some old soviet equipment like a BMP-2 or BRDM-2. But frankly, the DLC doesn't even cost 10 Euros. While you can always want for more, there isn't really much basis to demand it.

 

P.S. I like the new AAF Artillery. 

 

For what it's worth, the FIA did get some fun stuff in the form of the new Offroad (AT) and MB 4WD (AT), both with recoilless rifles, and the MB 4WD (LMG) which has a hilarious LIM-85 turret mount. I'd also consider the MAAWS Mk4 Mod 0, and maybe even the 9M135 Vorona as candidates for FIA use.

[R3vo 2654]

Great job on the new Assets, they looks fantastic and feel great. Though I have to agree that I am missing a tank for one of the smaller factions. But maybe Edita was hidden from us and is to be revealed later? ;)

Anyway, the DLC is well worth it's money and we'll see some very interesting missions in the future!

[Igor Nikolaev 511]

 

1 minute ago, R3vo said:

Great job on the new Assets, they looks fantastic and feel great. Though I have to agree that I am missing a tank for one of the smaller factions. But maybe Edita was hidden from us and is to be revealed later? ;)

Anyway, the DLC is well worth it's money and we'll see some very interesting missions in the future!

T-72 for FIA and AAF? Could be something great!

[Zygzak191 52]

4 minutes ago, R3vo said:

Great job on the new Assets, they looks fantastic and feel great. Though I have to agree that I am missing a tank for one of the smaller factions. But maybe Edita was hidden from us and is to be revealed later? ;)

Anyway, the DLC is well worth it's money and we'll see some very interesting missions in the future!

Would be nice if they showed her on April Fools'.