Are AA3 players tank shy?

[pooroldspike 129]

As a matter of interest do most AA3 players prefer infantry fights rather than tank battles?

I'm a tank nut and I've been looking for an AA3 clan/group/squad to join for two years now without success because most of them in the 38 pages of the Groups thread seem to concentrate on infantry operations only.

Infantry games are okay now and again, but for sheer insane violence you can't beat a tank assault.

"That's what I want! That's what I want to have!"- (Adolf Hitler on witnessing an early panzer demonstration at Kummersdorf, 1933)

 

PS- I just advertised for an armour group again in the 'Looking for squad' thread below and wait to see if there are any takers.. :)

https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/139873-player-looking-for-squad-not-for-squads-to-post-looking-for-players/page-34

[en3x 209]

I hope not.There use was italian community (BDR) that hosted rolling thunder but they stopped doing those.Maybe we should pick it

up and start over.

[sic-disaster 311]

I'm an infantry only player. To be honest, I don't like hiding in the 'tin can', but also it's not fleshed out enough to make it interesting. If BIS added something like the flight path for the helicopters, that might change. Though probably not for me.

[semiconductor 309]

As a matter of interest do most AA3 players prefer infantry fights rather than tank battles?

Well, maybe it's because Arma is infantry-centered game and cannot properly simulate tanks?

Or maybe it's because realistic tank vs. tank battles (which are extremely rare as far as I know) are very slow-paced with very short combat phase, long-ranged, require somewhat skilled crew members who know how to communicate and just simply dull for the most pat?

[pooroldspike 129]

Tanks were invented to make war more fun.. :)

Could be rough times ahead..

 

 

 

 

But our boys will step up to the plate..

Abrams 120mm SABOT round

[andersson 285]

I loved tanks in OFP, but then they removed the interiors and that killed the immersion for me. Probably doesn't matter for most people but for me it does. During the "dull" transports in OFP I could look around inside the turret and I had an overall view through the view ports, but in A1+ I'm always stuck in the sights unless I turn out and expose myself. For me it's the difference of being in a tank and floating around in console world.

And now in A3 PhysX doesn't help with the frustrating driving skills of tank AI.

[instagoat 133]

Have you tried playing tanks? Not small 10 minute battles, but 1 hour plus ops. It's not fun. I'll compare A3 to the only Tank Sim I regularily play anymore, and have played recently, SABOW.

 

A3 Tank Simulation, Driving physics: No ground resistance modelling, combined with an extremely twitchy driving model. Tanks reach extremely high speeds extremely quickly, spin around at extreme rates, and even in the slowest tank (Slammer by default) movement is so quick that a measured approach to anything is impossible. Vehicles feel as if they are made of cardboard and are driven by jet engines.

 

SABOW: Tank simulation, Driving physics: Very detailed modelling of ground resistance as well as advanced ground condition modelling (Wet vs dry ground, track slippage and blockage, things like that.) combined with a very well done driving model. Tanks feel extremely heavy and sluggish, like they have weight behind them. Slowest movement speeds are slower than walking pace, allowing very conscious and deliberate placing of your vehicle: no unintentional running over walls and into houses.

 

A3 Tank Simulation, AI movement: Only three movement speeds combined with different speeds dependent on tanks performance make faster tanks (T-100 or RHS T-80) a pain in the backside to move and fight with, especially when restricting self to first person and without human crew. No ability to chain waypoints and assign complex movement schemes necessitates painful micromanagement. AI has zero sense of how to use a tank in a fight, they just drive around at breakneck speed missing every shot upon contact until they either flip over, accidentially kill all enemies or (more likely) get shot by infantry ATGM.

AI does not use cover, does not use smoke or any other concealment, and does not know any tactical movements aside from "Drive fast and shoot faster".

 

SABOW Tank Simulation, AI movement: 5 graduated movement speeds on top of orders for different tactical movement types (use cover, find overwatch spot in low cover, use concealment, lay smoke, etc) make the moving and shooting part, despite the much more complex gunnery and command simulation more easily accomplished than in Arma. Enemy AI also tries to use concealment, cover and movement deliberately instead of blindly charging around the battlefield. In one campaign I regularily had iraqi T-55s turn up in my rear after they snuck through a patch of woods and through a ditch while holding fire (with no input required from me, the enemy AI did this on their own!) until they were within half a kilometer, right inside my platoons flank. This happened twice in the same campaign, in the same spot, until I wisened up to that location.

 

A3 also suffers from bad behind-armor damage simulation, which results in every vehicle exploding instead of (which happens most of the time in real life and in SABOW) the hit just killing/injuring the crew, disabling vital parts and at most causing an internal fire that makes the vehicle slowly burn up. Catastrophic explosions only happen rarely in SABOW, and only if ready ammunition or a fuel tank is directly hit.

 

Add to that A3s quirky physics engine with the flying tanks and the twitching and being flung into space backwards at 1000 kph and you'll see that not that many people bothering with tanks is understandable. I do a lot, but I do not enjoy it much and prefer to go to SABOW if I want a proper tank battle. A3 does infantry much better. Vehicles are candy, but not cake.

[en3x 209]

I like steel beast as an example but I usually don't compare different game genres together.I do take it as a good

example of features that would benefit arma 3 armored warfare.Ever since launch arma focused lot on infantry

and rightfully so (core game of the game).Helicopters got some love in DLCs.Planes received new HUD techology.

With all that said tankX and tank warfare stayed the same.

 

I understand the notion that modeling interior of every single vehicle is task which can't be taken lightly, so

I accept that.

 

However I lied in first paragraph.Tanks did receive some changes.In tankX introduction to multiple wheels

gears as a bandage solution to inability to climb steep inclines.Or perhaps amphibious tank simulation.

Smaller changes to AI drivers.

 

Beyond those changes the most lingering part still awaits love.

From wide cornering to lunging tanks to losing momentum over any obstacle or inability to turn

tank on the slope without sliding backwards, auto stopping at low speed the list goes on.

 

I can only hope that in long term plan, leadership of bohemia sees this issues and put phyX programmer

to work to solve this issue.

 

If you want o know more about issues read along 15 pages of physX discussion thread on dev branch

 

Note that I'm not trying to bash on anyone here, but simply raise the concern.

[Pyronick 21]

I loved tanks in OFP, but then they removed the interiors and that killed the immersion for me. Probably doesn't matter for most people but for me it does. During the "dull" transports in OFP I could look around inside the turret and I had an overall view through the view ports, but in A1+ I'm always stuck in the sights unless I turn out and expose myself. For me it's the difference of being in a tank and floating around in console world.

And now in A3 PhysX doesn't help with the frustrating driving skills of tank AI.

This

[Mirek 166]

What the hell is SABOW? Google cant find it. 

[Harzach 2517]

What the hell is SABOW? Google cant find it. 

Your Google-Fu is weak!

[Belbo 462]

One part of the 'problem', if you see one, is that you need a certain amount of players to play a plausible tank scenario.

Let's plan a tank-coop:

One tank platoon of four vehicles, equals 4x3 players (who should be firm with their tech and used to work together) = 12 players

One group dedicated for logistics and repairs, equals at least 3 technicians = 3 players

A security detachment for the technicians, let's say every one of them gets a buddy = 3 players

One group dedicated to medical assistance, let's say 2 medics = 2 players

Their security detachment or their drivers or their pilots = 2 players

A high command to coordinate the tank platoon, the logistics and the medic group - should be a high commander and his second in command and security detail = 2 players

That demands player roster with at least 24 players. And that's for a coop. Take the double and you have your minimum requirement for a tank tvt.

A lot of communities don't have these numbers (as actively playing members). There are however communities who put all their effort in their tank training and offer their tank crews to other communities (as sort of a cooperation - "you'll send the cannonfodder, we drive 'em over"). That's very specialised, but nonetheless a viable way to play.

 

Another factor is the aforementionend bias toward infantry combat of Arma 3 (no need to go on about it for me).

 

On a third hand the steep learning curve for a tank crew to cooperate effectively is not very newbie-friendly. That means, if you host missions with multiple communities, guests or if you haven't got a lot of tank addicts, you should take newbies into consideration or players who aren't well-trained. They want to get a full battle experience - at least sometimes, otherwise their motivation to play at all might eventually drop to zero. Tank scenarios don't really cater to that. They can, but that'll mostly end in chaos on the virtual battlefield.

 

I personally think that tank battles are fun - but only as a cherry on the cake. I wouldn't play with tanks on a daily basis.

[pooroldspike 129]

The Iron Front guys are very much into an exciting realistic mix of tanks and infantry, I wrote a bunch of sensational articles here-

http://www.ironfront.forumchitchat.com/?forum=290336

 

But for some reason AA3 players seem to be very infantry-oriented, maybe it's because (among other things) AA3 tanks have a weird habit of suddenly jumping like frogs, a bug that's long overdue to be zapped.

I'll pout and sulk for a while, have a cup of tea and a lie down, take in a "When Ghosts Attack" video, then might go back to dear old AA2 or Iron Front to get my fix of extreme psychotic tank violence, it's what I DO.. :)

Hirr Leto- "POS is deranged, crazy and full of fight. POS will bring it like no other... tactically sound player and yes, 'very' dangerous with armour.â€

RocketMan- "POS is great guy to learn tank tactics from with unsurpassed file return times (it is like he is an AI or something with him returning files any time of the night or day).."

Wardog- "POS you are a tough little f*cker to play against"

Koen- "POS I must admit that you're crazy and something's totally wrong with you but you're honest and straight to the point.."

 

[-=seany=- 5]

Have you tried playing tanks? Not small 10 minute battles, but 1 hour plus ops. It's not fun. I'll compare A3 to the only Tank Sim I regularily play anymore, and have played recently, SABOW.

 

A3 Tank Simulation, Driving physics: No ground resistance modelling, combined with an extremely twitchy driving model. Tanks reach extremely high speeds extremely quickly, spin around at extreme rates, and even in the slowest tank (Slammer by default) movement is so quick that a measured approach to anything is impossible. Vehicles feel as if they are made of cardboard and are driven by jet engines.

 

SABOW: Tank simulation, Driving physics: Very detailed modelling of ground resistance as well as advanced ground condition modelling (Wet vs dry ground, track slippage and blockage, things like that.) combined with a very well done driving model. Tanks feel extremely heavy and sluggish, like they have weight behind them. Slowest movement speeds are slower than walking pace, allowing very conscious and deliberate placing of your vehicle: no unintentional running over walls and into houses.

 

A3 Tank Simulation, AI movement: Only three movement speeds combined with different speeds dependent on tanks performance make faster tanks (T-100 or RHS T-80) a pain in the backside to move and fight with, especially when restricting self to first person and without human crew. No ability to chain waypoints and assign complex movement schemes necessitates painful micromanagement. AI has zero sense of how to use a tank in a fight, they just drive around at breakneck speed missing every shot upon contact until they either flip over, accidentially kill all enemies or (more likely) get shot by infantry ATGM.

AI does not use cover, does not use smoke or any other concealment, and does not know any tactical movements aside from "Drive fast and shoot faster".

 

SABOW Tank Simulation, AI movement: 5 graduated movement speeds on top of orders for different tactical movement types (use cover, find overwatch spot in low cover, use concealment, lay smoke, etc) make the moving and shooting part, despite the much more complex gunnery and command simulation more easily accomplished than in Arma. Enemy AI also tries to use concealment, cover and movement deliberately instead of blindly charging around the battlefield. In one campaign I regularily had iraqi T-55s turn up in my rear after they snuck through a patch of woods and through a ditch while holding fire (with no input required from me, the enemy AI did this on their own!) until they were within half a kilometer, right inside my platoons flank. This happened twice in the same campaign, in the same spot, until I wisened up to that location.

 

A3 also suffers from bad behind-armor damage simulation, which results in every vehicle exploding instead of (which happens most of the time in real life and in SABOW) the hit just killing/injuring the crew, disabling vital parts and at most causing an internal fire that makes the vehicle slowly burn up. Catastrophic explosions only happen rarely in SABOW, and only if ready ammunition or a fuel tank is directly hit.

 

Add to that A3s quirky physics engine with the flying tanks and the twitching and being flung into space backwards at 1000 kph and you'll see that not that many people bothering with tanks is understandable. I do a lot, but I do not enjoy it much and prefer to go to SABOW if I want a proper tank battle. A3 does infantry much better. Vehicles are candy, but not cake.

 

 

Yeah, I agree with the above.  I havnt played arma3 in ages, partly from feeling some-what burned by the lack of any interest from the devs in improving the tracked vehicle physics and other vehicle probs in arma3.  I loved tanking in every BIS game up to arma3, but the addition of physX to Arma3 did zero favours for armor simulation..it just made it worse.   I find it quite Ironic that The professional simulator (we are not supposed to mention..ahem) VBS now uses physx and similar updates to their engine that we have in A3, but guess what? They kept the tracked physics from Arma2.  Even they know it's horrible.

 

I hope one day they sort it out...Or even just give us back Arma2 tracked vechicle physics.

 

PS thanks for the tips/info on Steel Armor, looks sweet!

[en3x 209]

Yeah, I agree with the above.  I havnt played arma3 in ages, partly from feeling some-what burned by the lack of any interest from the devs in improving the tracked vehicle physics and other vehicle probs in arma3.  I loved tanking in every BIS game up to arma3, but the addition of physX to Arma3 did zero favours for armor simulation..it just made it worse.   I find it quite Ironic that The professional simulator (we are not supposed to mention..ahem) VBS now uses physx and similar updates to their engine that we have in A3, but guess what? They kept the tracked physics from Arma2.  Even they know it's horrible.

 

I hope one day they sort it out...Or even just give us back Arma2 tracked vechicle physics.

 

PS thanks for the tips/info on Steel Armor, looks sweet!

 

Problem can be solved with tankX simulation it just requires time and programmer.I believe they have to resolve clutch simulation.Red phoenix and previous thread that I linked knows all about it.

[pooroldspike 129]

BTW,  I don't mind being an infantryman sometimes, so is there a tutorial on how to jump straight into "open non-passworded" type multiplayer games without having to formally fill in applic forms to join a clan/group/squad?

For example I start AA3 and click 'Multiplayer', and a list of literally hundreds of groups come up, I spent most of yesterday afternoon ploughing through a few dozen but after clicking 'Join' I found I couldn't get in for various reasons because messages came up like "you don't have the required mods", "you are not whitelisted" etc. 

And when I was able to get into some, I found some were speaking a foreign language, or my player wasn't visible on the map, or I hadn't a clue where my teammates were, or where the objective was, or how the purchase and spawning rules worked etc.

I had a crack at juggling the Filter options (which I don't fully understand) to narrow down the list but it was still as long as your arm, hence my need to know how to quickly find english-speaking non-modded, non-passworded games that I can jump straight into any time of day or night.

PS- or if anybody cares to send me a password, go ahead..:) 

[en3x 209]

In "invade and annex" they have tank and IFVs that you can play with plus reward vehicles.

[Pyronick 21]

Problem can be solved with tankX simulation it just requires time and programmer.I believe they have to resolve clutch simulation.Red phoenix and previous thread that I linked knows all about it.

I think the whole clutch system should be replaced by a torque converter simulation instead. Especially when it comes to tanks.

 

Moreover, the engine RPM always instantly jumps to max RPM as soon as you apply throttle in the game. That is bound to create problems as this is physically not possible.

[en3x 209]

I think the whole clutch system should be replaced by a torque converter simulation instead. Especially when it comes to tanks.

 

Moreover, the engine RPM always instantly jumps to max RPM as soon as you apply throttle in the game. That is bound to create problems as this is physically not possible.

 

For sure.System wasn't designed for tracked vehicle in a first place.Depends on how complex would torque converter simulation be.

I think one way to solve problem according to red phoenix is to change clutch system.I don't remember exactly so I might be wrong

is was something about changing clutch from being either 1 or 0 as it at the moment.

[pooroldspike 129]

In "invade and annex" they have tank and IFVs that you can play with plus reward vehicles.

 

Thanks, I joined in a couple of their games but hadn't a clue what was going on so I've asked them to email me a set of rules..:)

[pooroldspike 129]

Well guys my attempts to find multiplayer games with a realistic mix of Infantry/Tanks/Light armour have fallen flat, so there's definitely a gap in the market for armoured operations as AA3 is currently in danger of getting a reputation as an "infantry only game".

So I'm thinking of buying/renting a server out of my own pocket and calling it something like "Infantry/Armour operations" and putting games on it created by me and anybody else.

Problem is I'm a total PC dummy and know absolutely zilch about setting up servers and stuff so I'll need your help/advice/opinions/death threats etc to get it going, any takers?

Let's give guys like this some juicy targets..:)

 

[major_barnes1987 33]

I like tanks too,they are my favourite beasts.I play mostly in EUTW servers and they are CTI based games,but no big tank vs tank battles there.They sometimes happen but they're very rare.It's usually tank vs infantry and apcs.I'll have to agree though with the other guys that B.I. needs to pay more attention to armored vehicles next time.To fix the damn physics so we can drive them properly and put some realistic damage system based on penetration points.

[pooroldspike 129]

UPDATE April 7th 2016-

Well the only open armour games I've found so far are the 'Hostile Takeover:King of the Hill' series, about 4 come up when I type 'takeover' into the Filter box, but only one of them has the full range of all AA3 armour including heavy tanks.

The other 3 only have a mix of unarmed and armed APC's and light armour but no heavy tanks.

 

PS-But even when playing in the one that has heavies, you have to 'unlock' them by racking up points (by killing enemy units and occupying objective zones etc) which even if playing for several hours a day will take me another couple of months to unlock heavy babies. It's fun but a bit of a hassle.

Hey if any of you guys are in one of the games at the same time as me, give me a call in Side chat and we'll team up, I sometimes buy a Marshall 8-wheeler to drive and need a trained 40mm gunner who knows his onions to shoot stuff up as we go on patrol. The gun fires HE and AP, and there's also a co-ax MG, so switch accordingly depending on the target, nobody better mess with us.. :)

[Janez 531]

One part of the 'problem', if you see one, is that you need a certain amount of players to play a plausible tank scenario.

[snip]

 

Sure, or you could play with 24 tank commanders and AI the rest. If tank simulation is improved 12v12 should be rather nice. AI can be frustrating sometimes but mostly you can make use of them.

[toysoldier 35]

If you want some heavy tank battles, King of the Hill, EUTW or Invade and Annex are the best way.