i swear arma 3 was supposed to have a railgun tank???

[Tyl3r99 41]

i think im going nuts but im sure i saw a railgun prototype before arma 3 alpha was released. or was that axxed too lol

[Tacti-Cool 10]

I've heard multiple reasons why it was removed, Community outcry, and balancing issues being the most popular, Only BI knows the truth

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Likely balancing. But maybe we can put out a request for BIS to stop this content/featuring cutting balancing thing. And use a better method of countering other things used in game. Though, I do kinda think a railgun tank is quite silly, given the mechanics of such a weapon would likely not be small enough to fit on a tank until at least the year 3000 maybe.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

Pretty sure it was the constant whining about the setting

[devilslayersbane 28]

Pretty sure it was the constant whining about the setting

Which hasn't stopped, but needs to. It's not changing now. Get over it. Get RHS. Do something besides complain about it. I would've liked to see a rail-gun tank. Too bad other people had to ruin that for me.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Also, a Railgun in Arma 3 would be a one shot kill to anything. Don't believe me? I bet they had problems with it penetrating multiple objects, and infantry? The thing could go through 50 people without slowing it down.

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

Personally I'd like the fear it would have instilled on the battlefield. Make it slow moving. But when it was around The area . Heads be down for sure. No messing about.

Balancing is extremely annoying in arma. Why not just create a banal battlefield that requires no extra care and attention to planning or tactics. Ugh. Just dumb it down, dumb it down.

---------- Post added at 03:04 ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 ----------

Is it mean that I want people that were stupid running and gunning or lone wolfing to die in arma? People that don't engage their brain what so ever when playing.

Oooh make the a10 cannon weaker it killed my tank boo hoo. It's a tank killing machine jabroni.

Waa that railgun wasted me too easy. Look at a map bozo use terrain.

[icebreakr 3159]

Don't forget NEMO mortar system also seen in the screenshots prior to release :/

[drebin052 324]

You can still find an ammo config for it in the pbos. And it's actually a coilgun, which can theoretically be mounted on tanks as opposed to railguns which can't.

	class B_coil_5g_spike: BulletBase
{
	hit = 30;
	indirectHit = 0;
	indirectHitRange = 0;
	cartridge = "FxCartridge_9mm";
	cost = 50;
	typicalSpeed = 3000;
	visibleFire = 1;
	audibleFire = 0.01;
	visibleFireTime = 2;
	airFriction = -0.0001;
	caliber = 10;
	deflecting = 0;
};
class B_coil_20g_spike: B_coil_5g_spike
{
	hit = 120;
	typicalSpeed = 6000;
};

Still a shame that they threw out the boxy barrel though. Coilgun tank or not, that barrel would have made the current T-100 look more like a tank that you would see in 2035.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

You can still find an ammo config for it in the pbos. And it's actually a coilgun, which can theoretically be mounted on tanks as opposed to railguns which can't.

	class B_coil_5g_spike: BulletBase
{
	hit = 30;
	indirectHit = 0;
	indirectHitRange = 0;
	cartridge = "FxCartridge_9mm";
	cost = 50;
	typicalSpeed = 3000;
	visibleFire = 1;
	audibleFire = 0.01;
	visibleFireTime = 2;
	airFriction = -0.0001;
	caliber = 10;
	deflecting = 0;
};
class B_coil_20g_spike: B_coil_5g_spike
{
	hit = 120;
	typicalSpeed = 6000;
};

Still a shame that they threw out the boxy barrel though. Coilgun tank or not, that barrel would have made the current T-100 look more like a tank that you would see in 2035.

Awesome find on the ammo config. Cannot understand why they decided to scrap it when they could have used that as a Movile Mortar system like the Stryker in Arma 2, oh wait, because balancing. But hey, they could take the turret off of the Marshall and make the Patria Patrol boat with the same Nemo Mortar system on it, the one I posted in the idea thread. That would be perfect for Naval assets, given there's only 3 main boats that are re skinned for each faction...

[roshnak 41]

Balancing is extremely annoying in arma. Why not just create a banal battlefield that requires no extra care and attention to planning or tactics. Ugh. Just dumb it down, dumb it down.

People need to stop complaining about balancing as much, if not more, than they need to stop complaining about the setting. Balancing does not necessarily mean that all sides get equipment that is 1:1 balanced against each other. It could just as easily mean that each side has unique strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited in order to win.

Besides, I'm almost positive that BIS has already come out as saying that people misunderstood what they meant by balancing, and that they were actually referring to ensuring that the AI is able to use equipment properly and effectively (but probably not too effectively). Whether this was meant in a players vs AI scenario or AI vs AI scenario, I don't know.

Oooh make the a10 cannon weaker it killed my tank boo hoo. It's a tank killing machine jabroni.

It was a tank killing machine in the 1970s. You are not going to be knocking out tanks and causing catastrophic explosions with the cannon on an A-10 in the year 2014, much less 2035. Mobility kills and damaged guns are pretty much what you can expect to achieve against modern tanks with the gun on the A-10.

But I honestly doubt that the railgun tank was cut for balance or realism reasons. It was probably cut because they couldn't find out a way to implement it properly (due to engine limitations or whatever) while also differentiating it substantially from conventionally armed tanks. Basically, the same reason that shotguns were cut.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

People need to stop complaining about balancing as much, if not more, than they need to stop complaining about the setting. Balancing does not necessarily mean that all sides get equipment that is 1:1 balanced against each other. It could just as easily mean that each side has unique strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited in order to win.

Besides, I'm almost positive that BIS has already come out as saying that people misunderstood what they meant by balancing, and that they were actually referring to ensuring that the AI is able to use equipment properly and effectively (but probably not too effectively). Whether this was meant in a players vs AI scenario or AI vs AI scenario, I don't know.

It was a tank killing machine in the 1970s. You are not going to be knocking out tanks and causing catastrophic explosions with the cannon on an A-10 in the year 2014, much less 2035. Mobility kills and damaged guns are pretty much what you can expect to achieve against modern tanks with the gun on the A-10.

But I honestly doubt that the railgun tank was cut for balance or realism reasons. It was probably cut because they couldn't find out a way to implement it properly (due to engine limitations or whatever) while also differentiating it substantially from conventionally armed tanks. Basically, the same reason that shotguns were cut.

About balancing, it depends. I see some things being done in regards to AI as well that make no sense. Arma 2 has AI right? BIS's stance is that if it works for AI, likely it's fine... So why is it, the Arma 2 poor in a gunship respectfully gets rockets because it's hard to coordinate rocket attacks with a gunner. YET, in Arma 3, the gunner gets both rockets and everything else. The excuse I got was that AI can't handle the tasks. Does that mean they can't handle the task in Arma 2? Or maybe the AI in Arma are smarter, thus enabling them to have that functionality? That's just one thing. Kinda gets me wondering about AI more.

[warlord554 2065]

If the ammo class is still present, then nothing is stopping the community from producing railgun weapons systems. Id love to see it ingame, especially in naval form. In the end only BI devs know why material is cut, im sure they have their reasons. Not alot we can do about that aspect but appreciate all the great things they have given us, instead of dwelling on the bad.

And the A10 gau cannon was never designed to be a tank killer, it just defeated older armor systems well. No pilot in their right mind would ever strafe a tank, unless they are given no other choice. There would either be another plane on station, or on the way with proper weapons to defeat tanks. Many pilots have to get special permission on the spot to even perform strafe runs, and also do so at their own free will knowing how dangerous it could be for them, and the expensive government aircraft they are flying

[oksman 37]

It sucks, I hate that this game is following games out there, starting the DLC spree aswell as thinking of Balance.. which obviously wasn't the case in Arma 2, which makes Arma what it is.

The world ain't fair and balanced, but sadly we have to have the exact same content on all sides.. essentially

[clawhammer 10]

Railgun Tanks in arma 3 spotted?:

http://www.abload.de/img/327203_23071675030839x3i95.jpg

http://www.abload.de/img/arma3_screeenshot_egchx2t7.jpg

[Redphoenix 1540]

At first community cried because it was supposed to get ingame.

Then when it was dropped community cried because it was dropped.

Well....

[roberthammer 582]

Railgun Tanks in arma 3 spotted?:

http://www.abload.de/img/327203_23071675030839x3i95.jpg

http://www.abload.de/img/arma3_screeenshot_egchx2t7.jpg

1st pic is the T-100 with rail gun

2nd pic isnt rail gun :D - its a NEMO mortar system > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_NEMO

All those cut vehicles/weapons goes into "early proof-of-concept and prototype versions only" category

[fareast 20]

yea right 'balance'...where is csat/aaf rocket artillery and bulldozer APC?

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

Awesome find on the ammo config. Cannot understand why they decided to scrap it when they could have used that as a Movile Mortar system like the Stryker in Arma 2, oh wait, because balancing. But hey, they could take the turret off of the Marshall and make the Patria Patrol boat with the same Nemo Mortar system on it, the one I posted in the idea thread. That would be perfect for Naval assets, given there's only 3 main boats that are re skinned for each faction...

Awesome idea man. Imagine it getting mortar on the ground. Needing to dispatch naval assault squad. or calling cas

Be a great reason to hit the boats in skuba.

[ProfTournesol 956]

At first community cried because it was supposed to get ingame.

Then when it was dropped community cried because it was dropped.

Well....

My thought exactly.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Awesome idea man. Imagine it getting mortar on the ground. Needing to dispatch naval assault squad. or calling cas

Be a great reason to hit the boats in skuba.

Exactly. It's completely logical, that is, unless they've completely deleted the model by now... but they could make a new one if they wanted to. Also note the pictures, and note how they still appear like Arma 2.5 (Take On Helicopter Engine). Anyhow, i hope for some important content additions, like Naval assets and such. Something to change up the game, because literally NO ONE uses water in this game.

[2nd ranger 282]

literally NO ONE uses water in this game.

The authors of several dozen missions I've played, which feature Zodiac, diver or SDV insertions just for the hell of it, would disagree with you. I've played missions where an insertion consists of dropping into the sea from a helicopter, getting in a Zodiac that happens to be there, then driving the boat to the middle of the ocean where there happens to be an SDV, then cruising into land from there. Those missions are retarded, but they're out there nonetheless.

[Janez 533]

Is there an underwater TDM mission?

[twisted 128]

did not miss the rail gun at all, rather have current technologies.

[LordJarhead 1725]

Same as for the missing weapons I guess :)

LJ