Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yairweinberg

Tanks are... Kinda weak...

Recommended Posts

As I said, vehicles are improved, many things will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At this point (1.04) about armored vehicles in Arma 3 I can only say, that to destroy "T-100" by shooting with 6.5 mm ammo at frontal armor you need (about) 17776 rounds (less than 600 magazines). In other words, with enough ammo, 30 riflemen should be enough to destroy that tank in one minute (not counting reloading time).

Less than 600 magazines...

You know that's not ever going to happen in anyone's game every, right?

Besides, 17776 bullets would eventually track and blind a tank, so who really cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know that's not ever going to happen in anyone's game every, right?

Sure. It is not the point. The point is fundamental principles behind tank armor simulation, that may have real gameplay impact for bigger calibers. 6,5 is of course intentionally extreme example.

so who really cares?

I really care. Otherwise I would not say anything. Just for me would be great, if mentioned numerous changes will cover also this, so old, problem. Possibility of blinding tank's optics of course would be nice too - good idea.

Edited by Rydygier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vehicle armor will be somewhat changed from what I know. However not all people might actually be happy with greater realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At this point (1.04) about armored vehicles in Arma 3 I can only say, that to destroy "T-100" by shooting with 6.5 mm ammo at frontal armor you need (about) 17776 rounds (less than 600 magazines). In other words, with enough ammo, 30 riflemen should be enough to destroy that tank in one minute (not counting reloading time).

But nobody would do that, much less the AI. Tank would just feed them a shell in the face first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vehicle armor will be somewhat changed from what I know. However not all people might actually be happy with greater realism.

Some people want things to remain the same as in OFP. :confused: better tank armor = better simulation = more fun.

Sure. It is not the point. The point is fundamental principles behind tank armor simulation, that may have real gameplay impact for bigger calibers. 6,5 is of course intentionally extreme example.

Exactly - from playing a couple (basic) tank sims, I realized how much is lacking from armored gameplay in ArmA.

For example, in ArmA 2, a T34-85 could easily destroy an Abrams. In fact, an AS50 could easily destroy a T-72 (10 shots, rear engine)!

In ArmA 3, the tanks seem much stronger, it takes multiple APFSDS rounds to destroy a "Slammer". I tried destroying the "Slammer" with the Mi28 cannon - it took 200 rounds of APDS and maybe about 150 rounds of HE. That is improved from ArmA 2, where a 30mm cannon could easily destroy tanks...

But still, the damage model is lacking. We need actual penetration modelling based on "real life" values, not hitpoints. For example, look at Steel Beasts Professional. Even the arcade game World of Tanks has better armor penetration modelling than I have seen in ArmA.

It is an issue that actually effects gameplay, hopefully the ArmA series will try to improve on it just like they have tried to improved on graphics and infantry controls, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people want things to remain the same as in OFP. better tank armor = better simulation = more fun.

As far as I can say, vehicles will most likely receive for example realistic armor thickness, which means greater realism but also will encourage more tactical and smart gameplay, and to better know your vehicle, it's strong and weak points.

There will also be some more realism improvements.

However it depends how much of this, zGuba will be able to implement.

Best would be to wait for next big patch, I think this is when many of these improvements will be presented to public.

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But still, the damage model is lacking. We need actual penetration modelling based on "real life" values, not hitpoints. For example, look at Steel Beasts Professional. Even the arcade game World of Tanks has better armor penetration modelling than I have seen in ArmA.

You're a little out of date. We have penetration-centric damage now. The damage model just hasn't really gotten there yet, since we still have damage being done without penetration, and the existence of hull hitpoints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're a little out of date. We have penetration-centric damage now. The damage model just hasn't really gotten there yet, since we still have damage being done without penetration, and the existence of hull hitpoints.

I haven't checked fully into damage and penetration, but I was able to destroy the "Slammer" with weapons that in real life would never penetrate a Merkava's frontal armor.

Also, crew members never seem to be injured by sabot rounds, for example. The round hits the tank and only damages the tank, the "behind armor effects" do not seem to be modeled at this point... it would be cool to have a sabot hit your tank and instantly injure / kill either you or other members of your crew, depending on the location of the hit, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't fully understand the halfway implementation we have now. Penetration works a lot better for APCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people want things to remain the same as in OFP. :confused: better tank armor = better simulation = more fun.

For some reason whenever I read things such as this it always brings me back to people saying that the helicopter flight model in OFP with its terrain hugging and mostly 'static' movement was more realistic..you just have to trust these people to adapt and learn or simply leave them behind, its not worth it to hold back the games potential to differentiate itself from the rest.

It's still likely very much WIP, first implimentations of this magnitude don't just go off without a hitch or in a timely fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vehicle armor will be somewhat changed from what I know. However not all people might actually be happy with greater realism.

If your not happy with greater realism, mod it to your liking. Just look at Armaholic and see there's mods like Arcade helicopters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your not happy with greater realism, mod it to your liking. Just look at Armaholic and see there's mods like Arcade helicopters.

Or it could be a menu difficulty option like "extended armor" and other such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that they are working on getting actual penetration of vehicles they might be able to make a more proper system by putting any parts that register damage inside the first physics hull that needs to be penetrated.

I wouldn't mind seeing more separate damageable components (especially for aircraft), but that sounds like it might have its own complications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that they are working on getting actual penetration of vehicles they might be able to make a more proper system by putting any parts that register damage inside the first physics hull that needs to be penetrated.

I wouldn't mind seeing more separate damageable components (especially for aircraft), but that sounds like it might have its own complications.

Fixed wing aircraft need to be totally rebuilt basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your not happy with greater realism, mod it to your liking. Just look at Armaholic and see there's mods like Arcade helicopters.

Who said that I am not happy with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and the funny not exist place in the model for 6 full loaded soldiers ^^

The Merkava Mk4 does have room for soldiers. It doubles as a squad transport in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Merkava Mk4 does have room for soldiers. It doubles as a squad transport in real life.

bullsh.t the space is for two wounded soldiers to bring them back in a save zone with no backpacks !! and not for an full equipment grenadier group ;) is not an ifv

when you make the space for the group then you have a very very low ammo in the tank !

Edited by JgBtl292

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bullsh.t the space is for when you make the space for the group then you have a very very low ammo in the tank !

Yes, one passenger = minus 12 rounds.

Normal capacity = 48 rounds

So 4 extra passengers = 0 rounds left

So with 6 passengers you would only have the few rounds of ammunition stored in the turret. ArmA 3 should change or remove the "battle taxi" feature when the tank is full of ammunition...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merkava Mk4 have only 10 rounds in turret bustle magazine, rest is stored at the hull rear in ammunition containers. I might talk about this with zGuba, next time we have some conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to have missed the traffic in this thread, but yes: To get room for passengers in the Merk, you do have to give up Ammo. Nothing is for free in the AFV world. I would love to see however the TC's MG, The Co-Ax, Mort, and the external co-ax modeled though as they are a big part of what makes a Merk a Merk. I'll disagree with those that say the Merk isn't the most well protected Tank out there (I do think it is), I will agree that the level of protection is sometimes overstated to a fare thee well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×