Vehicle variety & copy paste

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

The amount of content in ArmA 3 is disappointing, along with the amount of lazy copy-pasting. Also, some of the design choice is disgusting, but that is for another thread. Infantry is another thread too.

Howitzers:

Some things that bug me the most is how BIS just takes a chassis (Ex. Slammer), and pastes a turret on it (Ex. Scorcher/Sochor), and calls it unique. Personally I am fine with the Scorcher (though the name irks me because of how similar Scorcher is to Sochor and just sounds awkward) ,but the Sochor is unacceptable. It doesn't make sense at all for Iran/China/Whatever to use a NATO turret (or vise versa if I am wrong and the Scorcher/Sochor turret is real and actually is a eastern model). At the minimum, if you don't want to make a new chassis, at least put on a Msta turret or something Russian, but if you want to add more variety, model a completely new eastern arty unit.

Rocket Artillery:

Rocket artillery is disappointing as well. The Sandstorm is odd but I'm not going to bring that up yet, though I'd much rather prefer the M270 MLRS. At the minimum, add the Kamaz and Typhoon MLRS trucks, or add a new shiny Eastern MLRS to CSAT.

Anti-Air:

Another disgusting thing with the vehicles. The Tigris is very strange using a British AAA turret, as well as a BTR-K chassis. I don't care if it's a port with a better texture, updated config, and some model changes to fit ArmA 3, but please BIS, put in a Tunguska or something. The Cheetah irks me too but it's not as major as the tigris. If anything I would suggest a Hunter Avenger or something.

Vehicle-Mounted Weapons:

It makes no sense for both CSAT and the AAF to use the XM312 and the XM307. For the AAF I'd give them the M2 Browning and this on their Striders, and for CSAT I'd say like a KORD or something and something like this for the Ifrits. The Panther should have what's on the M2A4 Slammer UP for it's MG, and the Marid should have this or something-even-though-why-would-iran-have-a-turkish-vehicle.

APCs:

Panther and Marshall is fine and, I already talked about the Marid. But the BTR-K is unacceptably, no not the vehicle, the turret. Why would it be using a Czech turret?!?! It makes NO sense. Anyways, to this short, either put on a BTR-90, BMP-3, or BMD-3 turret or something else. Oh and maybe add that NEMO Marshall if you still have the files laying around, just saying, more content is never bad. :)

Ambulances:

Add a Medical Marshall, add a Medical BTR-K, both without their turrets, and add a Medical Gorgon also without it's turret and your good to go. Also, please, don't just remove the turret, paste on a medical sign and call it good.

Other stuff:

Oh and interiors for all vehicles would be nice. Another cool thing would be doors opening when infantry leave vehicles, including tanks.

That's all I can think of right now, but please don't ignore us. And please STOP with the copy paste and lazyness!

Edited March 22, 2014 by Nightmare515

[jgbtl292 0]

from the slammer (merkaba ) gives a verion as a Arty howizer but not with a russian turret :D

and yes the mix from the vehicles is very strange ^^ the nato or the russian chinese inda has so many - and we have a total unreal mix all mix with all killer for the immersion in A3

the weaponstations are the killer for me ^^ double size from the stations in 2012 GG and all the same big .........

Edited March 22, 2014 by JgBtl292

[dwaight 17]

i do agree on the look-a-like versions of both blufor & opfor. just the same , different color scheme.

[mistyronin 1181]

What really annoys me is that all vehicles use the same awful turret.

I mean, I'm not much into the 3d modeling, but I'm pretty sure that can't take that much time to create proper turrets for each vehicle ( it has been requested since the game was released half a year ago ):

For example the Otokar Arma could be use the original one:

Same for the Oshkosh M-ATV:

For the Fennek the MG one and a AA would be cool (as AAF doesn't have Armored AA ):

For the Panther IFV ( Namer ), that if it's really an IFV why it has an APC turret ( the only diff between APC and IFV according to war conventions is the caliber of the main gun ):

Same for the UGV and so on... Besides that at least CSAT should have its own designed UAV and UGV...

Edited March 22, 2014 by MistyRonin

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

Updated.

[ProfTournesol 956]

To me that really annoys me is that all vehicles use the same awful turret.

Agreed. That's what annoys me the most.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Despite coming off strong, i really must agree to most of these points. Now that the game is finished, its important to make it feel more... full. Including different versions of existing stuff, or more unique content.

[L3TUC3 32]

I asked the same question back in beta about the recycling turrets.

Fair enough view but, in regard to this point, I'd emphasise that it's more a product of time/resource limitations than any fundamental design intent.

The new APCs were redesigned to be a bit more distinctive, which meant we invested more resources here. Development is a balancing (oh no he didn't) act between what we want to achieve and what we're able to produce in time and to certain standards of quality. :)

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?152866-General-Discussion-%28dev-branch%29&p=2444123&viewfull=1#post2444123

I don't think they're really happy with it either.

[-=seany=- 5]

I appreciate all the cool things they are adding to the game. But I do agree, I would really like to see more "uniqueness" between the faction's assets, if that was possible.

[dwaight 17]

i wish they would do a re-design at some point.

[squirrel0311 16]

Ok, I hope more people take note or this because here is the thing that really annoys me with these Vehicle/Aircraft threads…

even-though-why-would-iran-have-a-turkish-vehicle.

It’s important to remember that most vehicles built today are done so by Contractors/Companies. NOT BY GOVERNMENTS OF COUNTRIES. A government might set the criteria for what it wants and a company based in that particular country might build it but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be exclusive to that government/country.

Companies are out to make money, therefore the best way to do that is open their product to the WORLDWIDE MARKET. Just take a look at IDEX, RAE, or DSEI.

This philosophy isn’t just exclusive to eastern companies however I would dare to say that if something was restricted, you’d have a better chance of getting what you wanted from them. I. G. They sell to someone allowed to own the product and then that person sells to you.

On top of that you have to remember CSAT is a coalition. This is taken from the website – “Set against the context of foundering economies and civil unrest across the west, CSAT has risen in prominence over the last decade. Investment in SHARED CIVIL AND MILITARY TECHNOLOGY and the aggressive pursuit of opportunities and partnerships throughout Asia, South America and North Africa has led to a sharp increase in strategic tension across the globe, as traditional spheres of power and influence are encroached upon.â€

TURRETS:

Although they do occasionally get swapped to different vehicles, it’s normally not between different countries so yes I agree with that. (Here’s a Boxer with a Puma lancer type turret http://i57.tinypic.com/vxe07r.jpg and here’s one with some sort of artillery http://i60.tinypic.com/kdac68.jpg)

I wrote out a big list of how I would have changed and distributed the vehicles to each faction but since it’s never going to happen I won’t bother going into detail about it. There’s a link in my wish list if you’re interested.

MLRS and Mobile Artillery: Although I don’t really hate it…I do agree they could have done much better.

NATO: M207mlrs Or HIMARS

XM1203 NLOS-C Or HS2000

CSAT: Astro II MLRS - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Avibras_ASTROS-II_SS-30.JPEG

I’d keep the Sochor, I think it looks better than the current Russian mobile artillery. Haha

AAF: (I would have given the AAF the Israeli vehicles including the Scorcher but that’s because I would have mixed the Nato vehicles up to look like a coalition… Leopard 2, FRES IFV, FRES or Marshall variant anti air, Marshall, and hunter.)

BTR-K and Tigris – I don’t mind the BTR-K so much. It might be a Czech turret but it still looks plausible. For the Tigris however….maybe they should have just used a BMPT Terminator as a make believe Anti Air variant. http://i57.tinypic.com/21mulhw.jpg - (Slap a radar on it.) http://i61.tinypic.com/10r4k2a.jpg

I’m at work so I can’t get on and look but does the AAF Gorgon and the CSAT Marid have the same turret? If so then that needs to change.

I agree the strider should have a telescoping commander viewer and that the AAF should use the M2 HMG / HK 40mm GMG.

The CSAT should use the KORD and maybe…30mm GMG?

Personally I love the tandem HMG/GMG turret. I do agree that it would be better if each side looked different.

Nato: Should keep the one in game. http://imageshack.us/a/img684/263/capturefhd.jpg

AAF: Should get a less costly looking, bare bones version. http://i59.tinypic.com/s2tz14.jpg

CSAT: I’d like to see a mini version of the big 30mm turret on the Otokar Mirzak. Give it the top mounted commander viewer too! :P

http://imageshack.us/a/img528/686/hud5fdvb35fdg.jpg http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img826/6311/huh545dfgg.jpg

[2nd ranger 282]

"... Investment in SHARED CIVIL AND MILITARY TECHNOLOGY â€

That's not evidence of anything. BIS put things like that on the website and in the field manual as a way of retroactively justifying the 'shared' content.

Although, since BIS recently surprised us with a new CSAT truck, perhaps there is some hope that they do plan to update some of the old assets.

Nato: Should keep the one in game. http://imageshack.us/a/img684/263/capturefhd.jpg

Heh. The good old happy puppy turret.

Edited March 23, 2014 by 2nd Ranger

[stringstring 10]

Bohemia used to make serious, detail-oriented military games :(

[Tonci87 163]

Agreed. That's what annoys me the most.

Me too.

[telejunky 0]

Bohemia used to make serious, detail-oriented military games :(

Yep. Back in the OFP days, it felt so immersive sitting in vehicles, because of the interiors. Shooting the M1A1 maingun kicked the inner end of the barrel back :ok:

[laverniusregalis 10]

Yep. Back in the OFP days, it felt so immersive sitting in vehicles, because of the interiors. Shooting the M1A1 maingun kicked the inner end of the barrel back :ok:

Except for that part where the camera was hilariously broken inside of vehicles...

[chortles 263]

That's not evidence of anything. BIS put things like that on the website and in the field manual as a way of retroactively justifying the 'shared' content.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone in charge of this game decided "assets first, explanations later" years ago and that this -- like the 2035 setting itself -- isn't even a recent thing.

Although, since BIS recently surprised us with a new CSAT truck, perhaps there is some hope that they do plan to update some of the old assets.

Just note that new CSAT truck was specifically declared to supplement and not actually replace the CSAT Zamaks so as not to break existing missions using the latter. We may get new and "better" assets but I wouldn't expect changes to existing assets... in the same way that instead of getting a commander HMG atop the Slammer we instead got a separate Slammer Urban Purpose variant, for example. (It would at least mean though that once such assets are released, you could pick them when creating new missions, or open existing missions and replace them manually or via "Find and Replace" in a mission.SQM.)

[dwaight 17]

Yep. Back in the OFP days, it felt so immersive sitting in vehicles, because of the interiors. Shooting the M1A1 maingun kicked the inner end of the barrel back :ok:

In ArmA 2 every vehicle you go in feels more lively.. or rather real.

[theevancat 277]

I asked the same question back in beta about the recycling turrets.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?152866-General-Discussion-%28dev-branch%29&p=2444123&viewfull=1#post2444123

I don't think they're really happy with it either.

So maybe they'll come back to it in the future? I dunno. Seems like with the campaign done they're on to "tweaking." So in addition to bugfixes and whatnot, does that mean they might address these issues?

[L3TUC3 32]

So maybe they'll come back to it in the future? I dunno. Seems like with the campaign done they're on to "tweaking." So in addition to bugfixes and whatnot, does that mean they might address these issues?

They're coy with committing to things now for good reason. What we can deduce from it is that if they have the time and development capacity they'll make it happen. That doesn't necessarily mean anything will change now though, but in a perfect world scenario it would. Let's just hope that's the case with WIN out of the way.

It's going to be an interesting sitrep tomorrow.

Edited March 24, 2014 by L3TUC3

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

They're coy with committing to things now for good reason. What we can deduce from it is that if they have the time and development capacity they'll make it happen. That doesn't necessarily mean anything will change now though, but in a perfect world scenario it would. Let's just hope that's the case with WIN out of the way.

It's going to be an interesting sitrep tomorrow.

The real party starts after Zeus drops. Than we can see what is next in line. but for now lets, just hope for the best.

[chortles 263]

Pretty much what DarkSideSixOfficial said, since the only specific that BI's actually declared on the record is that Zeus' stable branch release would be the next priority after WIN.

[soulis6 24]

I feel like this is incredibly low priority. They should focus on things that actually improve the gameplay, like AI, pathfinding, Zeus, optimization, mission creation tools, new content etc.

Not aesthetic differences that most players won't notice, and the ones who do will forget about it after a few weeks anyways.

[L3TUC3 32]

I feel like this is incredibly low priority. They should focus on things that actually improve the gameplay, like AI, pathfinding, Zeus, optimization, mission creation tools, new content etc.

Not aesthetic differences that most players won't notice, and the ones who do will forget about it after a few weeks anyways.

It's the aesthetic and functional similarities that stand out. Why take artistic license and not make use of it? It just makes the overall design look unfinished. We already know it wasn't the intention to have green vs tan (vs brown) army.

Currently it's all in a fully functional state and excellently made too, but it's too big a part of the content to just gloss over.

I do agree on your other points too.

[roshnak 41]

I would like to point out that vehicles from different factions sharing turrets doesn't just create aesthetic problems; it creates real gameplay issues involving vehicle identification. One of the primary ways that we identify vehicles in less than optimal visual conditions is by silhouette, which can be a problem if vehicles from different sides are sharing the same parts.

Oh, and if all I see is a bunch of sandbags and an unmanned (or autonomous -- that would really suck) static machine gun, how do I know whether I am looking at an enemy fortification? This scenario isn't very likely, but it's certainly possible for someone to find themselves staring down the barrel of a machine gun and not knowing whether it belongs to their friends or the enemy.