Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ligerfangz

NATO Vehicles and realism

Recommended Posts

I would change them. I really would. The vehicles... They just feel lazy. I don't have a problem with them, I really don't, but I don't like all the foreign vehicles, especially for US Forces.

I think BI could have gone with something home-grown and made from the US instead of giving a bunch of Israeli vehicles to the US. I really do like, and generally approve of some vehicles, and it is realistic to include them within an American arsenal. The AMV-7 Havoc and the A-164 Wipeout. I'm not so sure about the IFV-6 Cheetah. I guess it would be a good AA platform, and it wouldn't have been very American-like to go with a heavy caliber anti aircraft artillery weapon. I think they would've gone with a rapid fire less powerful auto-cannon, something like the GAU-12/22 mounted on an AMV-7 Havoc. Along with a couple of missiles.

Next we have something I generally don't like. What was chosen as a tracked APC. The US doesn't buy from Israel, period. And the M113 replacement will be a turretless M2 Bradley (which I like to call the M114) and it will come into service sometime in 2015 apparently. (According to military today.)

http://pds25.egloos.com/pds/201211/09/60/f0205060_509c531fe9602.jpg

Here's an image of a medical evac variant. It actually looks pretty cool. Would love it if you added it to the game BI. But that's very unlikely to happen as the game is already released.

Now, the M2 Slammer. I don't like it. Instead of developing a homegrown M1A3 Abrams, I felt you went the lazy path and chose to use a merkava. Which doesn't even have a trophy system. I feel like this is a very odd thing to do. The U.S. Army announced a program to build an M1A3 Abrams that will replace the current variants of the M1 Abrams. But instead BIS went for the Merkava IV. Why? I've no idea. Either way, this was a big disappointment. The way Kaos studios approached homefront was perfect. Moving on...

There needed to be larger MRAPs. Not just M-ATVs, it's too small to carry a large number of troops. And the HEMTT is too fragile to perform that job. There needed to be a larger MRAP, but that was missed as well.

But hey, this is just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US =/= NATO. There is a UK army in the game. I hope from BIS to add more vehicles from diffrents countrys than US.

And keep in mind that vehicles like Merkava or Hunter were designed for OPFOR faction :

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/11/1426199584-arma-3-pc-1308315389-013.jpg (119 kB)

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/11/1426199584-arma-3-pc-1308315389-018.jpg (111 kB)

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/11/1426199584-arma-3-pc-1308315389-025.jpg (123 kB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
US =/= NATO. There is a UK army in the game. I hope from BIS to add more vehicles from diffrents countrys than US.

And keep in mind that vehicles like Merkava or Hunter were designed for OPFOR faction :

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/11/1426199584-arma-3-pc-1308315389-013.jpg (119 kB)

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/11/1426199584-arma-3-pc-1308315389-018.jpg (111 kB)

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/11/1426199584-arma-3-pc-1308315389-025.jpg (123 kB)

Wow. Looking at those models, i can still see how they originally had it to where it was still Graphics from TOH Engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
US =/= NATO. There is a UK army in the game. I hope from BIS to add more vehicles from diffrents countrys than US.

And keep in mind that vehicles like Merkava or Hunter were designed for OPFOR faction :

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/11/1426199584-arma-3-pc-1308315389-013.jpg (119 kB)

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/11/1426199584-arma-3-pc-1308315389-018.jpg (111 kB)

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/11/1426199584-arma-3-pc-1308315389-025.jpg (123 kB)

Ah, but you see...

The UK doesn't use vehicles in the game. And they've finished their deployment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deployment of US is finished too, isn't it ?

EDIT : Your link is dead.

Edited by Mitrail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with the vehicle and weapon selection is that it has no real life paralels.

You take a Abrams or a Bradley and you instantly associate it with the US military or Nato.

With the content selection in Arma 3 you have pure randomness, croatian rifles, israeli tanks and armor etc all randomly tossed to random factions.

Nothing outside of a select few pieces such as the CSAT MBT feel like an evolution or better yet an approximation of what is likely to be fielded by 2030 nato or 2030 combloc equivalent.

This is not to go into the whole all 3 factions sharing weapons aspect that I suspect is due to lack of resources at BI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy if they just bothered to fix the vehicle physics of what we have. Like, is it really too much to ask for a tank that can drive in a straight line when moving slowly? Or wheeled vehicles that don't behave like they should be driving around a circus ring ?(go on..take a Strider and drive it along at speed veering left and right..comedy hour) Almost two years old and vehicle physics have barely been touched....like the forgotten child of the series...It's a damn shame.

From the Arma3 website:

PHYSICS

The introduction of a new PhysXâ„¢-powered physics model has resulted in the most detailed vehicle simulation yet seen in the Arma series. Momentum, suspension and gravity all play a much bigger role in enhancing the vehicular experience of Arma 3.

Oh really? Even Operation Flashpoint walks all over Arma3's tracked vehicle physics. It's pathetic. Broken for 2 years since Early Access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would change them. I really would. The vehicles... They just feel lazy. I don't have a problem with them, I really don't, but I don't like all the foreign vehicles, especially for US Forces.

I think BI could have gone with something home-grown and made from the US instead of giving a bunch of Israeli vehicles to the US. I really do like, and generally approve of some vehicles, and it is realistic to include them within an American arsenal. The AMV-7 Havoc and the A-164 Wipeout. I'm not so sure about the IFV-6 Cheetah. I guess it would be a good AA platform, and it wouldn't have been very American-like to go with a heavy caliber anti aircraft artillery weapon. I think they would've gone with a rapid fire less powerful auto-cannon, something like the GAU-12/22 mounted on an AMV-7 Havoc. Along with a couple of missiles.

Next we have something I generally don't like. What was chosen as a tracked APC. The US doesn't buy from Israel, period. And the M113 replacement will be a turretless M2 Bradley (which I like to call the M114) and it will come into service sometime in 2015 apparently. (According to military today.)

http://pds25.egloos.com/pds/201211/09/60/f0205060_509c531fe9602.jpg

Here's an image of a medical evac variant. It actually looks pretty cool. Would love it if you added it to the game BI. But that's very unlikely to happen as the game is already released.

Now, the M2 Slammer. I don't like it. Instead of developing a homegrown M1A3 Abrams, I felt you went the lazy path and chose to use a merkava. Which doesn't even have a trophy system. I feel like this is a very odd thing to do. The U.S. Army announced a program to build an M1A3 Abrams that will replace the current variants of the M1 Abrams. But instead BIS went for the Merkava IV. Why? I've no idea. Either way, this was a big disappointment. The way Kaos studios approached homefront was perfect. Moving on...

There needed to be larger MRAPs. Not just M-ATVs, it's too small to carry a large number of troops. And the HEMTT is too fragile to perform that job. There needed to be a larger MRAP, but that was missed as well.

But hey, this is just my opinion.

Lazy to choose a Merkava? What are you talking about? There are dozens of Abrams in the ArmA series so they chose an original and interesting vehicle for once. I do agree it was lazy not implementing trophy and the internal mortar.

And you have to remember that is the NATO faction, not the US army faction. And BIS used some artistic creativity, it is well possible that in 2035 in some alternate universe(or this universe), Israel has become a major weapon supplier for NATO.

I do agree some bigger MRAPs are needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Israel has become a major weapon supplier for NATO.

The Field Manual entries for both the Titan and Slammer reference Israeli weapons being manufactured under license in many Western European nations, so it's not too far fetched that this would also apply to some extent to the U.S. military.

Now, the M2 Slammer. I don't like it. Instead of developing a homegrown M1A3 Abrams, I felt you went the lazy path and chose to use a merkava. Which doesn't even have a trophy system. I feel like this is a very odd thing to do. The U.S. Army announced a program to build an M1A3 Abrams that will replace the current variants of the M1 Abrams. But instead BIS went for the Merkava IV. Why? I've no idea. Either way, this was a big disappointment. The way Kaos studios approached homefront was perfect.

You need to remember that the Armaverse U.S. military has also undergone a LOT of sequestration prior to the 2030s. Which means that unlike the real life U.S., there aren't enough assets to go around for redeploying into Europe instead of the Pacific, which currently has higher priority when it comes to getting new toys because the elephant in the region (China) is getting bigger and bigger.

Also if you look aside BI reusing assets from the old Iran faction (which was pretty much all-Israeli when it came to their weapons), the lack of American-made vehicles in the NATO motor pool can be kinda justified by the fact that all those vehicles are probably on some sort of lend-lease deal from Israel since there's no budget or enough M1A3s/future Bradleys around for deploying into Altis. The first mission of the campaign even explains why they're scrapping all the Hunter MRAPs and Panther/Cheetah IFVs instead of shipping them back simply because it's too expensive, and at the same time they're not going to just hand them over the AAF for free.

Just wait until the expansion rolls around. We'll probably see what the "real" U.S. Army (or Marine Corps) will look like then, which will no doubt include M1A3s/Bradleys/etc. or some other designs from whatever BI comes up with for their Armaverse version of a 2030s Future Combat Systems-style program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazy to choose a Merkava? What are you talking about? There are dozens of Abrams in the ArmA series so they chose an original and interesting vehicle for once. I do agree it was lazy not implementing trophy and the internal mortar.

And you have to remember that is the NATO faction, not the US army faction. And BIS used some artistic creativity, it is well possible that in 2035 in some alternate universe(or this universe), Israel has become a major weapon supplier for NATO.

I do agree some bigger MRAPs are needed.

I think he was referncing the reason why the Merkava ended up being the US Militarys MBT in Arma 3.

Apparently before they chose to stick with the Atlis and Mediterrennian setting they were going to do an Israel and Iran setting but instead of getting rid of those assets they just randomly stuck them in the game.

Hence the Israeli supplied MBT, Iraeli supplied Iranian weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know some people will hate me for doing this, but I am going to close this thread. Why you ask/yell? :

A. We had this discussion several times already and it will eventually degenerate into a " Well, they should have done it/should do it (wishlist thread 1 and 2) this way" - "Yeah, well deal with it!" back and forth discussion.

B. You are free to bring up issues that bother you, but please consider using already existing threads, especially when the previously mentioned issues revolve around personal preferences.

Thank you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×