'Balancing' of the Slammer UP

[UltimateBawb 1]

The new Slammer UP only has a 105mm cannon as opposed to the normal 120mm. The description of the tank states that it was made smaller to accommodate for the extra weight of the armor.

1. The gun model is the 120mm model one still, only the config was changed

2. No one in their right mind would increase armor to a point where they would need to weaken the gun

3. As of point 2, this is a blatant display of artificial balancing that belongs no where in Arma

I can't believe how ridiculous this change is, it's like we're talking about Battlefield or something. The UP should simply have slightly reduced speed and handling.

[Largos. 10]

I have to agree, the standard slammer is the slowest and has no commander gun while the UP is just as slow and is the lightest armed and lightest coaxial gun. The slammer tanks also have the worst anti-infantry shells, the MTP-HEAT has little splash damage. After all this the T-100 is far faster, has the highest caliber main gun, and has a commander gun. I don't see what they were going for when they did the slammer. If they went for realism then it'd have the same armament as the Merkava Mk4 60mm internal mortar, 120mm main gun, 2x 7.62 mm guns, and a .50 cal. If they had decided to go for balance they would've given the slammer amazing armor or at least a commander gun.

"Wait a second that's what it is" the only thing is someone thought that wasn't balanced and decided to shrink the main gun and the coaxial gun. I don't understand why on earth you would fit a 105mm on a slow heavily armored mbt? They could've easily just put a shortened barrel and added a couple new ammunitions since the HEAT-MP-T lacks splash damage and doesn't seem to be all that multipurpose in arma at the moment.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

M2A4 Slammer UP seems like a parallel dev model that was not pushed into 1.00 release ... IMO the M2A4 is the real Slammer and the M2A1 is actually the incorrect one. ie. it has a short barrel and is half APC half tank, but somehow has the big shells.

This creates a balancing issue when they're both in the game.

But that said, scenario makers now have a bit of variety to play with.

[oksman 37]

Wait what? When was Arma about being balanced... it never should be, it should be "sort of" authentic. And they've definitely given the CSAT or.. OPFOR the upper-hand which has never happened before, at least not in my book ^^

[hellfire257 3]

Yup, it's pretty retarded.

[Niklas 1]

If BI is going to try to even out the sides to the point where they basicly have the same equipment they should atleast make a 105mm cannon look like a 105mm.

[UltimateBawb 1]

M2A4 Slammer UP seems like a parallel dev model that was not pushed into 1.00 release ... IMO the M2A4 is the real Slammer and the M2A1 is actually the incorrect one. ie. it has a short barrel and is half APC half tank, but somehow has the big shells.

This creates a balancing issue when they're both in the game.

But that said, scenario makers now have a bit of variety to play with.

It's not a balancing issue, there is no balancing to be done. I'd have no problem with the UP version being better in every way than the default version, if it was authentic. Of course it's not better in every way though; the UP is heavier and therefor slower and harder to maneuver as well as more 'expensive' and should therefor be generally less abundant in well designed missions.

What a great many people fail to understand is that the more authenticity a game has, the more 'balanced' (in a natural, correct way) it becomes. A game can be perfectly balanced with either perfect realism or perfect artificial balance, anything in-between will fail. This is why there are no balancing issues with for example Arma 2 and TF2, but a host of balancing issues with CoD and Battlefield.

[Damian90 697]

If BI is going to try to even out the sides to the point where they basicly have the same equipment they should atleast make a 105mm cannon look like a 105mm.

But it is. :)

Place on map M2A1 and M2A4 and compare diameters of their guns barrel, M2A1 have 120mm and M2A4 have 105mm. Both guns have just similiar lenght and have the same overall design.

[king homer 1]

It's all about balancing and has been since OFP back in 2001. Remember all tanks had 35 shells each? All choppers had 500 rounds ammo for the cannon? It's just done in a more subtle way these days.

In my eyes, differences are superficial only. You can't sell a game, which mainly aims for MP, and have a superior faction/army/whatsoever.

[oksman 37]

In my book Arma has always been the COOP experience for me. In those scenarios balance is nothing, I'd rather have an authentic M1A1 rather than a balanced tank to match the T90 or vice-versa. Am I the only one who think Balancing as in "multiplayer" balancing is not needed in Arma :P?

Obviously I'm not unreasonable, if it were the case of 10 vs 1 tank and the 1 would win, then surely it's something iffy ;)

[mausAU 10]

What I find hard to believe is that in twenty years' time people are still exclusively using chemically propelled weaponry. Example: Where are the hypersonic steel flechettes that real attack helicopters are equipped with at the moment? Where are the ECM plague-carrying vehicles? How on Earth could there still be dumbfire munitions? Where are the railguns?

In Knight Ryder the LEDs in KITT's grille cost $240 each, ~$10,000 all up. Now, for change from $10 I can obtain ten times as many that are ten times smaller, twenty times brighter and a thousand times more long lasting. One could even extrapolate from that.

But I totally understand, the cannons have a 15mm bore difference with no outwardly visible reduction in girth or length (ha ha) and that to me is what the real issue is when the subject of unrealistic stuff in ARMA 3 gets brought up :D

P.S. One thing I do genuinely find odd is that there seems to be a 1:1 ratio of Enemy Tank to Friendly Tank in the game. No force majeure! I would have preferred a more realistic Soviet approach whereby horribly inferior weaponry wins out over terrifyingly superior weaponry because, well, quantity has a quality of its own and life isn't precious everywhere.

P.P.S. 1 tank easily winning a stoush against 10 is historically accurate and quite realistic. On the grand level warfare is all about rock, paper, and scissors. You figure out how to throw the rock at the guy, stab him with the scissors before getting a signed instrument of surrender before he does the same :)

Edited March 14, 2014 by mausAU

[Steakslim 1]

What I find hard to believe is that in twenty years' time people are still exclusively using chemically propelled weaponry.

You mean what we've been using almost exclusively for a few hundred years?