Portable missile launchers, have fun on public servers

[nimrod123 11]

There's a difference, though, between having to use a vehicle to carry the ammunition, or being able to carry it on your back. A vehicle makes noises, is large and visible and basically not suited for a stealth approach... if you have too much firepower on your back, you just sneak in

i was thinking more, firepower in package. a manpad squad, is at the end of the day, a squishy target

[TGxAltair 10]

We played Wasteland last night and simply stocked our truck up with missiles and launchers and went hunting around the map. We stocked up around 15 kills very quickly just by taking out enemy vehicles or troops trying to search a vehicle.

[chortles 263]

Hey now nimrod123, the complaint wasn't OP infantry killing but how they did against MBTs... I don't recall, is there a camouflaged version of the Titan MPRL or MPRL Compact? I know that PCML (formerly called NLAW) is basically OD while the RPG-42 Alamut has something approaching a "camo-style" look, and I gotta say, that would seem to make a difference as far as the user's detectability when they're on the move.

[Varanon 892]

i was thinking more, firepower in package. a manpad squad, is at the end of the day, a squishy target

Well, so is a truck or jeep, most small arms can damage them (just shoot the tires).

Besides, I won't argue that a MANPAD squad should be able to kill a helicopter or two... I argue that a single guy with a MANPAD should not be able to shoot more than one, unless he's either supported by an ammo bearer, or a vehicle with stored ammo.

[nimrod123 11]

Well, so is a truck or jeep, most small arms can damage them (just shoot the tires).

Besides, I won't argue that a MANPAD squad should be able to kill a helicopter or two... I argue that a single guy with a MANPAD should not be able to shoot more than one, unless he's either supported by an ammo bearer, or a vehicle with stored ammo.

nah, let him get 2, but have nothing else. 50KG is a handlable weight, but you won't have more then the launcher, 2 spare shots MAX and a sidearm

[Varanon 892]

nah, let him get 2, but have nothing else. 50KG is a handlable weight, but you won't have more then the launcher, 2 spare shots MAX and a sidearm

Whoa, 50 kg is a weight you can lug for several kilometers ? And sprint or run in the process ?

But honestly, I would be interested what the actual weight of the missiles and launcher is in game. Maybe a dev can answer that ?

[nimrod123 11]

Whoa, 50 kg is a weight you can lug for several kilometers ? And sprint or run in the process ?

But honestly, I would be interested what the actual weight of the missiles and launcher is in game. Maybe a dev can answer that ?

most infantry in real life carry that day in day out. emgergency march load for a US army reaches 147 lbs. under normal conditons they carry about 65lbs, without ruck, and aproach load (which is what i see this as) is 97lbs with ruck (which is day in day out standard)

and people wonder why soldiers bodys give out

[Alwarren 2765]

Yeah, future tech and all

Future tech obviously failed to produce any more effective ammunition than the 6.5x38 that we already have these days (Grendel is 6.5x39). The propellant is obviously not more effective than contemporary rifle ammo, since neither their damage nor their range is higher than what you expect. So even assuming that the warhead would be more effective, the propellant obviously isn't.

And the same future tech would produce better armour plates as well.

Bottom line, what is needed is

a) MUCH more effect from fatigue and load. Right now, the effects range from "not noticeable" to "mildly annoying" (same goes for the injuries but that's another topic)

b) Display the weight of things and how much you can carry/are carrying.

c) Tweak the weights so that you cannot carry four large anti-tank or anti-air missiles.

d) Take volume into account. The Stinger is freaking large, and you cannot even fit ONE of them in a backpack, left alone four.

[Varanon 892]

most infantry in real life carry that day in day outt

Distributed over their body (armor, helmet, carrying gear etc). But additional equipment weight ? Which part of the equipment is that heavy ?

[Masharra 10]

Distributed over their body (armor, helmet, carrying gear etc). But additional equipment weight ? Which part of the equipment is that heavy ?

Needed to be quoted.

[nimrod123 11]

Distributed over their body (armor, helmet, carrying gear etc). But additional equipment weight ? Which part of the equipment is that heavy ?

the heaviest loads? the ruck, with radio, water and food, plus all "necessary" gear.

for the march and emergency march, they get more food, and more support equipment (motar shells, LMG belts, AT rockets etc)

[liquidpinky 11]

And even four is too much. Remember when in Arma 2, you actually had one missile, and no way you could carry a second on in a backpack ? Where you actually had ammo bearers ?

Had four missile set up on Domi last night, how many scored a hit on Mi-48?

None, and they were all properly locked on.

So basicaly I was running around with a wasted weight while trying to defend the team from the Gunship.

[Varanon 892]

Had four missile set up on Domi last night, how many scored a hit on Mi-48?

None, and they were all properly locked on.

So basicaly I was running around with a wasted weight while trying to defend the team from the Gunship.

It still doesn't negate the fact that carrying 4 missiles is already too much.

See this ? You can't tell me you casually run around with 4 of those in your inventory

[chortles 263]

Liquidpinky: at what ranges, at what angles (relative to the Mi-48, I suppose here the word I should be using is "aspect"?) and did the Mi-48 pilot deploy flares?

As far as the AA missile "volume": while my method is admitted dead-reckoning because for some reason there seems to be a slight amount of time progression between clicking Camera and the actual time freeze, I nevertheless gave a best shot (pun not intended) at getting a good measurement going, i.e. being as 'straight on' as possible with the angles and as soon as possible so that the missile would be as close as possible to the launcher... and the Titan AA missile looks noticeably shorter than a Stinger missile, much less the Titan MPRL, which for some reason I get the impression is shorter than the FIM-92 launcher as well.

[Varanon 892]

and the Titan AA missile looks noticeably shorter than a Stinger missile, much less the Titan MPRL, which for some reason I get the impression is shorter than the FIM-92 launcher as well.

Put them on the ground, and you will see how big they are. Let's consider that we are dealing with missiles here, not rifles. These things are self-propelled and don't need a barrel like a rifle, so the launcher is basically just a tube used to pack the missile in. The tube doesn't need to be (much) longer than the missile itself.

Check this screenshot I made (never mind the fins, they are rectractable). You want to put one of those on your vest ? This thing is already too big for the backpack and this soldier is the default Blue AA soldier.

Yeah, yeah, future tech and all, but here I was thinking that Arma was about being as realistic as possible.

In any case, the fact that four missiles in your inventory is possible just negates a vital aspect of gameplay, namely that of enforcing teamwork.

[Anachoretes 10]

Also, we need some IR\Heat detection.

[chortles 263]

Here are the screenshots on which I based my take, although I reiterate that it was a good-faith attempt.

I didn't say anything about a vest, though I'm left wondering what the hell kju meant by mentioning that, as you might have noticed in the other thread.

Also, we need some IR\Heat detection.

This goes in the Tab targeting thread.

[Qosmius 10]

hey guys, if you take an alamut launcher, you can carry 9 missiles if you have a big backpack with one loaded in the launcher. just drop the medkit of whatever since noone will find you.

besides im just writing this in a humorous way..i seriously think mission makers needs to rethink theyr weapon load outs etc etc

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 14:06 ----------

also the missile damage and helicopter damage modells needs to be a bit worked on. it should not be the case that every heli you hit go down harder when you get hit by mike tyson. would be fun to see something that atleast there is a chance to not get totally destroyed.

and i dont think arma engine works with 2 engine systems? since alot of helicopters have dual engines, and can fly a short distance/emergency land with 1 engine operational. but both engines seems to be destroyed at the same time every time

[Varanon 892]

Here are the screenshots on which I based my take, although I reiterate that it was a good-faith attempt..

Nice shots :cool:

Although I notice the missile looks completely different from the version on the ground. The fins seem to be fixed, not foldable. Probably a model used for other missiles as well (for external weapon carriers, no need for folded fins)

[metalcraze 290]

besides im just writing this in a humorous way..i seriously think mission makers needs to rethink theyr weapon load outs etc etc

There's no way for a mission maker to prevent people from taking whatever they want.

Encumbrance was supposed to prevent such exploits but BIS is too afraid of upsetting casual players or something and thus we are stuck with a very terrible and pointless fatigue implementation that prevents no exploits whatsoever.

[nimrod123 11]

hey guys, if you take an alamut launcher, you can carry 9 missiles if you have a big backpack with one loaded in the launcher. just drop the medkit of whatever since noone will find you.

besides im just writing this in a humorous way..i seriously think mission makers needs to rethink theyr weapon load outs etc etc

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 14:06 ----------

also the missile damage and helicopter damage modells needs to be a bit worked on. it should not be the case that every heli you hit go down harder when you get hit by mike tyson. would be fun to see something that atleast there is a chance to not get totally destroyed.

and i dont think arma engine works with 2 engine systems? since alot of helicopters have dual engines, and can fly a short distance/emergency land with 1 engine operational. but both engines seems to be destroyed at the same time every time

engines arn't the problem, lack of rotors is. the rocket tends to ruin the blades, and normally ruin the transmission. helicopters are not made to stand up to good AA rockets, at best they can stop small arms. a AA rocket hitting a heli is a certain kill, maybe the crews not dead, but they will be since its now uncontrollable.

this sums it up, a mi8 (the basis for the mi24 hind, and indirectly the mi28) getting killed by a light chinese manpad

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ec_1363366149

@varanon, i think the make missiles a ammo bearer should get is 4 (2x2 ontop of ruck) if they are light and 2 (side by side) if they are medium, reducing to 1 for a really heavy on.

the firer should only be able to carry a light launcher (loaded) and maybe 2 spares, or a mid launcher(loaded) and a spare (again maybe), or a loaded heavy launcher

[gossamersolid 155]

Well, you can basically think of it like this: 2035 is about 20 years from now. Look back 20 years, and what do you see ? You'll notice that the development hasn't been that severe.

ArmA 3 is supposed to be taking place during a "World War 3" scenario isn't it? Well ok, let's look at 1943's technology compared to 1923's technology... how big of a difference is there in that gap?

I'll answer that for you, quite large.

[zimms 22]

In the Armaverse, is there a conventional world war going on between 2015 and 2035?

If not, you can't really compare those two.

[Varanon 892]

ArmA 3 is supposed to be taking place during a "World War 3" scenario isn't it?

At least that was the case last year... now, we don't know anymore, but let's assume it is.

Well ok, let's look at 1943's technology compared to 1923's technology... how big of a difference is there in that gap?

I'll answer that for you, quite large.

Geez, nowadays, no one can answer without sarcasm anymore, right ?

Any technological advancement has to be countered by other technological advancements. Better tank armor will lead to advanced warheads. This means bigger tanks, bigger penetration necessary, i.e. bigger explosives, bigger missiles. By your logic, tanks at the end of WW2 would have become smaller, which they didn't. Calibers where enlarged. Tanks became insane in size. Have you looked at the size of anti tank weapons since WW2 ? They hardly changed in size at all. Why ?

Besides, no matter how much advancement there is, just look at the size of the missile, and tell me that you will carry four of them in your backpack.

And finally, reality completely aside, game considerations have to come into play too. If any one single soldier can easily knock out four to ten vehicles without any problems, who the heck would still use vehicles ? The whole idea of single man armies is ridiculous.

[metalcraze 290]

ArmA 3 is supposed to be taking place during a "World War 3" scenario isn't it? Well ok, let's look at 1943's technology compared to 1923's technology... how big of a difference is there in that gap?

I'll answer that for you, quite large.

Fine, let's play.

So in the future launchers advanced so hard they are now very lightweight (let's disregard laws of physics too, and things called mass and size) and can TAB-lock-one-shot choppers which, despite all being actually futuristic models (like Hamok), have no way of avoiding detection/getting one shot by a lightweight man portable missile?

Why, sounds pretty plausible.

Defending wrong BIS decisions because you like the developer and are a fan of the series is a very, very wrong thing to do. You can keep coming up with excuses but to BIS it will be just a reassurance that what they are doing is right. Just a pat on the back.

And in the end all of us will get a broken game where you can carry 100 kgs on your back and the only punishment for that is none... Well except you are "forced to run" which you can do forever - quite terrible punishment, you have to agree.

Do you really want one-man-armies to run around in ArmA taking out tanks, choppers and people at 2km distances, never needing medics or ammo bearers? Because this is what is already happening in the game right now.

Edited July 2, 2013 by metalcraze