Tanks DLC Feedback

[dragon01 902]

The problem with APS is that they pretty much make the tanks invincible, or at least absurdly difficult to destroy. While this is pretty much the point, it doesn't make for very good gameplay. Even Afganit, while it doesn't have 360 degree protection from the interceptors, is apparently capable of using the commander's MG in a CIWS-like fashion.

 

Even with component damage, I feel that it'd make tanks way too powerful. An anti-tank team would require both a sniper to destroy the APS system and a rocket specialist to actually kill the tank... The only vehicles capable of countering tanks would be aircraft (which carry a lot of missiles and can simply launch two in quick succession), and even then, their capacity would be effectively cut in half.

[DancZer 65]

What I'm missing is that i don't feel the power of the cannons by visual.

The shooting should wave the trees, brushes. And dust! Dust from everywhere! Buildings, nearby vehicles, ground.

There are lot of videos on the YouTube, here is one:

https://youtu.be/t9B0J6bAhjI?t=6m21s

I think the shooting shockwave should also destroy some small an weak items nearby. (building windows, sunshades, damage human?)

[dragon01 902]

Standing near to a tank's gun (or an artillery cannon, for that matter) when it fires should kill you, actually. That's part of the reason smaller, faster-firing guns are preferred on IFVs. Blast overpressure can inflict grievous injuries on human body. ACE models this, as well as launcher backblast (which is a related concept).

[Vasily.B 529]

The problem with APS is that they pretty much make the tanks invincible, or at least absurdly difficult to destroy. While this is pretty much the point, it doesn't make for very good gameplay. Even Afganit, while it doesn't have 360 degree protection from the interceptors, is apparently capable of using the commander's MG in a CIWS-like fashion.

 

Even with component damage, I feel that it'd make tanks way too powerful. An anti-tank team would require both a sniper to destroy the APS system and a rocket specialist to actually kill the tank... The only vehicles capable of countering tanks would be aircraft (which carry a lot of missiles and can simply launch two in quick succession), and even then, their capacity would be effectively cut in half.

Jut like in real world. What about platers playing tanks, that feel bad beacuse they got hitted and destroyed by ani-tank launcher that should NOT HIT their vehicle?

 

What I'm missing is that i don't feel the power of the cannons by visual.

The shooting should wave the trees, brushes. And dust! Dust from everywhere! Buildings, nearby vehicles, ground.

There are lot of videos on the YouTube, here is one:

https://youtu.be/t9B0J6bAhjI?t=6m21s

I think the shooting shockwave should also destroy some small an weak items nearby. (building windows, sunshades, damage human?)

Alo i played arma 2 and saw big dust cloud after vehicle was driving by - and this cloud stayed for long time - absent in arma 3.

Arena 3 its very good system IMHO and could be mounted on some new tank in DLC:

http://defense-update.com/20130925_a-new-arena-aps-debut-at-rae-2013.html

PS: To make APS not such fantastic, grenades (countermeasues?) could harm nearby infantry.

 

[Variable 322]

AI armored vehicles have the absurd tendency to get way too close to the units they are engaging. This is not WW1, therefor tanks should take advantage of their extended weapons range so scenes like in the video below won't be as common.

That BMP doomed itself when it started rolling towards the infantry.

[OMAC 254]

Yes! 

 

But what type of waypoint was that BMP using?  Perhaps a waypoint led it to approach too close?  If it was Search and Destroy or Guard, then it would be best if the armor stayed as far back as possible while still able to get a clear shot, and fired from range from behind cover.  I would think the BMP should circle the enemy, firing from range to cause casualties, gradually moving in a little closer.  But IRL a lone BMP wouldn't ever approach too close, especially in an urban environment.  If protected by footmobile infantry, it would of course move in closer as needed.  Hell, I'd call in an air strike or arty if I was in that BMP with no infantry support!  ;)

 

Or at least I'd call in some tanks!

 

 

(Again note massive dust clouds and area shake when tanks fire main cannon.  Note that tanks are shooting at single men with main cannon several times; I think that A3 tank HE shells should cause more splash damage than they do now.  Sometimes an HE shell can hit <30m from footmobile AI and cause no casualties.)

[Variable 322]

But what type of waypoint was that BMP using?  Perhaps a waypoint led it to approach too close?  If it was Search and Destroy or Guard, then it would be best if the armor stayed as far back as possible while still able to get a clear shot, and fired from range from behind cover.  I would think the BMP should circle the enemy.

It was holding positioin on the objective we were suppose to raid before it detected us (as the UAV operator, I failed to detect it on thermals because it was cool). So I'm pretty sure it was either Guard or Sentry. However, in any case (except for a specific waypoint), there should be some definition for an optimal weapon range the vehicle should attempt be in relation to the target it's engaging.

 

Oh, and please make armored vehicles use proper HE rounds against concentrations of infantry. Sticking to machine-gun fire is lame when it comes to a tank or an IFV.

[dragon01 902]

Jut like in real world. What about platers playing tanks, that feel bad beacuse they got hitted and destroyed by ani-tank launcher that should NOT HIT their vehicle?

The tanks already have means to dispose of any enemy AT teams. Thermal sights, HE rounds, MGs... If a tank gets hit with a missile, it's the crew's own bloody fault. Rather, think how would an infantry player feel after being killed by a tank that is literally invincible?

 

We're not talking "though". We're not talking "nearly invincible". We're talking plain, old invincible. As in, nothing can even scratch the tanks. Just look at how Trophy performed during Operation Protective Edge. 100% success rate on everything they could throw at it. And I mean everything, the Israelis did not ever lose a single Trophy-equipped tank. Not only that, it could detect and mark the launcher crews. As far as infantry and ground vehicles are concerned, tanks would be indestructible, while being capable of killing anything except airplanes.

 

The only things capable of damaging tanks would be helos (with great difficulty) and mines. Yes, if they fully simulated futuristic APS, it would've been able to intercept tank gun rounds. Probably not with 100% reliability, but still. Mines only work as defensive measures, not to mention its rather hard to lay a meaningful minefield on ArmA timescales (unless you use artillery, but it's not an option in most missions). Helicopters would have a chance with staggered missile launches, but only just. Yes, real APSes are just that good.

 

The only way I can see an APS working in the game is an older system like Drozd, maybe justified by cost reasons (fitting APS to vehicles is expensive, but that doesn't matter in ArmA). A directionally limited APS with a less than 100% success rate could be a good addition. No shooting down APFSDS rounds or arty shells, no 360 degree protection, no flawless reliability.

 

Another thing I could get behind are soft kill APSes like Shtora. Laser detectors (so you need to time your lasing or get blasted), IR dazzlers and the like could make tanks less vulnerable by making scoring a kill with guided missiles harder. It wouldn't be impossible, but would require skill, which is what makes for interesting gameplay. I'm usually all for hardcore realism, but hard kill APS technology has got to the point when it makes combat one-sided, and it doesn't seem anti-tank weapons are keeping pace with it.

[thecanadianvending 24]

I think everyone here is going to get their hopes up for a full tank simulation, and then will blame BI when they don't deliver on some of these absurd wishes. Think Helo DLC. They will probably add 1-4 tanks, better AI, and a better FCS system. They won't add a Trophy simulation, because ARMA is an infantry simulator first and foremost. Nevermind that, it is still a game that they have to balance realistically.

 

You want real tank simulation? Go to Steel Beasts, because ARMA will never have that level of simulation

[rowdied 44]

I think everyone here is going to get their hopes up for a full tank simulation, and then  will blame BI when they don't deliver on some of these absurd wishes.  

 

You want real tank simulation? Go to Steel Beasts, because ARMA will never have that level of simulation

 

You hear this BIS? I think he is calling you out and challenging you. Are you going to sit back and take this? 

[Vasily.B 529]

The tanks already have means to dispose of any enemy AT teams. Thermal sights, HE rounds, MGs... If a tank gets hit with a missile, it's the crew's own bloody fault. Rather, think how would an infantry player feel after being killed by a tank that is literally invincible?

 

You dont understand. If tank already have aps model, why not making it working? I was writing about protection from AT alunchers, not tanks.

As Damian writed, drozd already installed on T-110 can't cover 360 degree, so you can flank the tank and hit it with success, shooting in front, even without APS is rather bad idea, beacuse ERA. And HE runds... Tanks are not using bloody HE rounds at all in arma 3, unless whole SABOT rounds will be shooted, so now tanks not using its potential.

 

"As far as infantry and ground vehicles are concerned, tanks would be indestructible, while being capable of killing anything except airplanes"

 

First - they have lmited ammo (countermessures or whatever is the name), second - they can be disabled. Besides that there are allways dead zones, mayne not in case of trophy, but Arena  for example can be taken down by shooting from above. Besides this, countermessure can kill nearby infantry same as claymore mine, so those APS are not so perfect as you are writing.

 

"Yes, if they fully simulated futuristic APS, it would've been able to intercept tank gun rounds."

Show me at least one APS capable of engaging SABOT.....

"Mines only work as defensive measures, not to mention its rather hard to lay a meaningful minefield on ArmA timescales"

Explosion charges? Heard about it?

[Blafirelli 24]

Screw the balance, ArmA is supposed to be realistic. I mean, isn't mission designer supposed to balance the scenario he sees fit?

[Vasily.B 529]

Screw the balance, ArmA is supposed to be realistic. I mean, isn't mission designer supposed to balance the scenario he sees fit?

Totally agree. Is omeone want a balance, let him play damm BF-4 or CoD Infinity Warfare..... Milsim is milsim, arcade is arcade. If tanks in RL are almost "undestructable", let it be in Arma 3, easy as can be. If T-90 can fire carnister rounds, mount Heavy machinegun above 125mm gun barrel - it must be arcade BF....

[R3vo 2654]

I agree, a tank should be a fearsome opponent. Right now it's like: "Hey there's a tank!" *grabbing Titan launcher and one-hitting it* Which is no fun at all!

 

Advanced defenses against incoming missiles could lead to more advanced strategies for attacking, e.g, attacking from different angles with mutliple AT-Weapons, or eventually avoiding contact at all.

 

A defense feature which would support that, would be highly appreciated.

[waxman 5]

Simply put I have 3 things that I believe are needed to make tracked vehicles enjoyable.

 

1. track simulation and power train refinement, hills should not be an issue neither should objects smaller than the track height (speed dependent).

 

2. Control both steering (tracks are quite different to wheels) and acceleration / breaking. I know a big part of the issue with keys is on or off but accelerating from stand still to max speed at the press of a key is silly, giving vehicles an acceleration curve and deceleration curve as well as separate breaking will allow for manageable low speed maneuvering (taping keys).  

Have configurable cruise controls to manage your speeds, set your cruise control just like we do with scope ranges and have several configurable levels, press and hold w takes you to first speed, quick tap and hold on w when at max speed ramps up to next speed etc. eg. set 5mph as your first to keep pace with foot troops 20mph for safe maneuvering in urban areas and top speed.

 

3. A half way house between first person armored glass / mirror slot view and 3rd person flying above the buildings view, with out the death wish of being turned out.  Situational awareness in real vehicles despite their actually horrific vision is considerably better than ingame hence some assistance being needed plus tank commanders in real vehicles actually help monitor surroundings rather than then looking down the barrel of an MG or sitting in a map.

 

How about compressed 2 x 180 degree monitor feeds along with enhanced vision slits and perhaps some form of clearance indication for sides / rear.

[Vasily.B 529]

Simply put I have 3 things that I believe are needed to make tracked vehicles enjoyable.

 

1. track simulation and power train refinement, hills should not be an issue neither should objects smaller than the track height (speed dependent).

 

2. Control both steering (tracks are quite different to wheels) and acceleration / breaking. I know a big part of the issue with keys is on or off but accelerating from stand still to max speed at the press of a key is silly, giving vehicles an acceleration curve and deceleration curve as well as separate breaking will allow for manageable low speed maneuvering (taping keys).  

Have configurable cruise controls to manage your speeds, set your cruise control just like we do with scope ranges and have several configurable levels, press and hold w takes you to first speed, quick tap and hold on w when at max speed ramps up to next speed etc. eg. set 5mph as your first to keep pace with foot troops 20mph for safe maneuvering in urban areas and top speed.

 

3. A half way house between first person armored glass / mirror slot view and 3rd person flying above the buildings view, with out the death wish of being turned out.  Situational awareness in real vehicles despite their actually horrific vision is considerably better than ingame hence some assistance being needed plus tank commanders in real vehicles actually help monitor surroundings rather than then looking down the barrel of an MG or sitting in a map.

 

How about compressed 2 x 180 degree monitor feeds along with enhanced vision slits and perhaps some form of clearance indication for sides / rear.

Last sentence is very true. Crew can look at the periscopes, which allow observation of pretty much around tank (depend of model of tank), good idea would be (just and idea)

- Switching between Main/primary sights/periscopes by CTR + Right mouse button.

[dragon01 902]

You dont understand. If tank already have aps model, why not making it working? I was writing about protection from AT alunchers, not tanks.

As Damian writed, drozd already installed on T-110 can't cover 360 degree, so you can flank the tank and hit it with success, shooting in front, even without APS is rather bad idea, beacuse ERA. And HE runds... Tanks are not using bloody HE rounds at all in arma 3, unless whole SABOT rounds will be shooted, so now tanks not using its potential.

That's an AI problem I hope they will fix. Players can use them. And as I said, I wouldn't be against a system like Drozd that would require flanking the tank. However, it'd be a bit strange to see a supposedly "future" tank use a system developed in the early 80s. Yes, it has happened on occasion, but mostly in 3rd world countries. 

First - they have lmited ammo (countermessures or whatever is the name), second - they can be disabled. Besides that there are allways dead zones, mayne not in case of trophy, but Arena  for example can be taken down by shooting from above. Besides this, countermessure can kill nearby infantry same as claymore mine, so those APS are not so perfect as you are writing.

Again, I'm not against APSes with obvious deadzones and viable countermeasures. The problem is, modern APSes like Trophy or Afganit have no deadzones. ArmA3 is set in the future, but if they included a futuristic (or even modern) APS like Trophy, it would make the tank indestructible. Yes, the countermeasures are limited, but there's a lot of them (more than the missile supply of most vehicles). Yes, they can be disabled IRL, but ArmA doesn't, as it stands, support such detailed damage model.

Show me at least one APS capable of engaging SABOT.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Fist_(countermeasure)

Iron Fist can and did do that (in tests). Afganit is planned to be upgraded so that it can do that as well. 2nd generation APSes usually have that capability.

Explosion charges? Heard about it?

Explosive charges don't work against maneuvering tanks, either. You either have to get very close and hope the tank doesn't move, or put it down like a mine and hope it drives over it. Not good if you're trying to assault a position defended by armor.

Totally agree. Is omeone want a balance, let him play damm BF-4 or CoD Infinity Warfare..... Milsim is milsim, arcade is arcade. If tanks in RL are almost "undestructable", let it be in Arma 3, easy as can be. If T-90 can fire carnister rounds, mount Heavy machinegun above 125mm gun barrel - it must be arcade BF....

In other cases I'd agree with it, but in practice, it'd just stop tanks from being used by anyone. ArmA is primarily an infantry simulation, but IRL, it seems that unless Russians come up with something, infantry would be completely unable to touch them. The only realistic way of handling that would be to keep infantry away from tanks. So that's what mission designers and server admins (as well as real commanders, if they can help it) would do. 

I agree, a tank should be a fearsome opponent. Right now it's like: "Hey there's a tank!" *grabbing Titan launcher and one-hitting it* Which is no fun at all!

 

Advanced defenses against incoming missiles could lead to more advanced strategies for attacking, e.g, attacking from different angles with mutliple AT-Weapons, or eventually avoiding contact at all.

 

A defense feature which would support that, would be highly appreciated.

 

The current way isn't very good, but it's still better than the tank being unkillable (also, an AT launcher encumbers you and limits your inventory space, so having one isn't always a given). If the only viable strategy was avoiding contact, it wouldn't be fun, either. Also, attacking from different angles is a bad idea, since APS systems usually have multiple countermeasure launchers. Attacking from one side simultanously could work, but it'd be hard to set up in MP and downright impossible with AI teammates. This is why I suggested soft kill systems like Shtora, so that missiles have a chance to miss, but if you do it right, you can still score a hit. 

[Vasily.B 529]

So maybe Adding trophy is perfect solution (no Iron fist) to merkava, and smth like drozd for T-100? Its totally enough for me, as i dont see iron fist in current model from Bohemia.
Also adding tank like T-90MS (with arena for something like "balance"), would be nice, and much better than T-100.

BTW i doubt Iron an defeat SABOT, its simply impossible for me ( i dont see it) , and there is no evidence it can do it.

[kbbw123 115]

My feedback on a tank dlc is just one thing mainly.

 

NO BLOODY HEALTHBARS!

 

At the moment a properly angled front armor or a nice hull down position in a T-100 will let you survive 3 APFSDS rounds. ths should not be the case. Lets take the T-90 MS for example, as build it is quite simulaire to the T-100. the armor of the T-90 MS frontwise is to much for most conventional APFSDS cannons to pierce. yet 3 rounds seems enough to blow it?

 

A tank does not have a healthbar!

 

I can understand why you would do it, make the game more playable for people who don't care for realism or proper tank usage except for taking the tank to run over infantry. But for us tank loving people its just a killer... you should only be able to destroy a tank by killing its crew (Side shots on the thinnest armour on possible crewmember locations), by blowing the ammorack or by putting it on fire by destroying the engine or fuel compartment (remember, a disabled tank is also vaiable as a destroyed tank, only that you could use it more to your own advantage).

 

Ofcoarse I would also love to see interior (The god awefull 1st person driver viewport is a mess... no way to drive a tank properly when you cant even see the side of your tank >.> ).

[lex__1 422]

Make an inscription on the tank bottom - "Excuse for the caused inconveniences. Thanks for purchase Tank DLC".
Connected with this ticket https://feedback.bistudio.com/T82457

Politeness manifestation, not so irritates at this moment.  )))

Good viewing

https://youtu.be/6ppTyxQhb2s

[odie0351 67]

I know its likely just beating a dead horse at this point but here's my two cents anyways

 

Both fixing the physics on tracked vehicles and improving the Armored vehicle AI should be top priorities before anything else. I'm sure that I'm far from being the only person who can honestly say they've been frustrated by both of these scenarios: A) Having a tank put out of the fight because wonky physics caused it to be hurled into the air and/or flipped onto it's roof. B ) Having incompetent AI either charge headlong into the opposition, unnecessarily placing itself well into range of shoulder fired rockets and getting itself surrounded all at once or the AI seemingly refusing to face its heavily armored front towards the enemy, even when all immediate danger is from that specific direction. I feel that before anything else comes into the equation like active and passive protection systems, new vehicles or new anti-armor weapons these issues should be addressed.

 

That being said, once those issues are addressed I would love to see both new armored vehicles and new anti-armor weapons to slay them with :D(A fictional "Super Abrams", a sexy Challenger '3', a marshal or panther with ATGM's would all be great choices for Blufor in my opinion while for Opfor I'd love to see (and in this one I probably am alone) a tank similar to the T100 Ogre from End War...I know it's dorky as all get out but the idea of a futuristic super heavy tank just gets me, and an appropriate amphibious capable IFV would be great. Some modern tanks and IFV's/APC's would be great for FIA and Syndikat.

 

As far as new features I would like to see implemented, I would like to see APS, balance be damned haha, and proper damage model and simulation to go with that. Vehicle crews that are willing to turn out to utilize externally mounted weapons would be a plus, I know its not that important for most vanilla assets but for mods like RHS that actually have weapons that you have to turn out to use it'd be great to have AI that are actually willing to turnout and use them. And while I know its a controversial issue these days, I would absolutely love to see modeled interiors. I know it'd be more superfluous than anything so it is by no means something that I feel should come before fixing flawed physics/AI or adding new and useful features though, so if it never even gets considered by BI I fully understand.

[lex__1 422]

That that frightens me in DEV of the version. The turn of a tower of the tank provokes to twitch the case and to fail in soil.
Mission \Demonstration \NATO
There was no time to test more widely.

https://youtu.be/RAzF2DVthuI

[Vasily.B 529]

PhysX is specially pain if savegame (before tank fly) cannot load, beacuse of depedency errors created after 1.60. If you are the tank crew in this game, better uninstall it till it be fixed.
Seriosuly guys, fix is needed since 2013.

BTW stabilisation could be improved a bit, and few old tickets:
https://feedback.bistudio.com/T84542

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T86383

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T86209

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T85719

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T85438

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T85232

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T84398
https://feedback.bistudio.com/T84328

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T84330

All tickets are about tanks

[waxman 5]

Simply put I have 3 things that I believe are needed to make tracked vehicles enjoyable.

 

1. track simulation and power train refinement, hills should not be an issue neither should objects smaller than the track height (speed dependent).

 

2. Control both steering (tracks are quite different to wheels) and acceleration / breaking. I know a big part of the issue with keys is on or off but accelerating from stand still to max speed at the press of a key is silly, giving vehicles an acceleration curve and deceleration curve as well as separate breaking will allow for manageable low speed maneuvering (taping keys).  

Have configurable cruise controls to manage your speeds, set your cruise control just like we do with scope ranges and have several configurable levels, press and hold w takes you to first speed, quick tap and hold on w when at max speed ramps up to next speed etc. eg. set 5mph as your first to keep pace with foot troops 20mph for safe maneuvering in urban areas and top speed.

 

3. A half way house between first person armored glass / mirror slot view and 3rd person flying above the buildings view, with out the death wish of being turned out.  Situational awareness in real vehicles despite their actually horrific vision is considerably better than ingame hence some assistance being needed plus tank commanders in real vehicles actually help monitor surroundings rather than then looking down the barrel of an MG or sitting in a map.

 

How about compressed 2 x 180 degree monitor feeds along with enhanced vision slits and perhaps some form of clearance indication for sides / rear.

 

After some consideration overnight, while I would happily pay just for these changes noted above I know from the past DLC's the plan is to have a mechanics update and new premium optional content.

I suggest for the content that recovery (FV434 ARV or CRARRV for example ) and engineering vehicles be considered especially with the recent introduction of helo lift cables a crane should not be too complex nor should enhanced winching / towing. And if dare we hope structural damage is on the books rather than explosions then enhancing repair mechanics to require heavy machinery for some jobs (engine replacement for example) or making other jobs a lot quicker (track refitting) rather than a quick heal animation and a repair kit would be nice.

 

Engineering may be a little useless with out terrain destruction or rivers though mine clearance could be workable, though i guess instead of terrain destruction revetments could be placeable objects by engineering tanks.

[x3kj 1247]

The reason why tanks accelerate too fast is because the turbocharger behaviour is not considered for the simulation, but the maximum rated power with turbocharger(i.e. wikipedia) is used as base.
At very low rpm, the vehicle only has the natural aspirated engine power. So if you stamp on the accelerator, you accelerate slower due to the engine having less power. The turbocharger picks up at some point. But this is the reason the designers of the Leopard 2 prototype opted for boring up the cylinders to get higher power (but also higher consumption) with a natural aspiration, which means higher acceleration from stand still. Something that a common turbocharger can not give you. In addition to that come engine losses that are not considered. In Leopard 2 earlier versions ~ 14.5% of the total available engine power where consumed by the cooling fans that prevent the overheating of the engine alone. Figure that!( i write earlier because latest tech is not really documented publically). So in conclusion, if a datasheet shows 1100kW rated engine power, you have alot less power for accelerating due to losses all over the vehicle's drive train and auxiliary systems.

 

In addition we have fake gears in arma (bad workaround to solve the "lack of clutch simulation), which means the engine can always output optimum performance, as it can switch gear as soon as it leaves the most efficient working point

 

And then there is unrealistic inertia and drive resistance values, especially for wheels which follows no physical behaviour whatsoever from the outside... with the wrong ("unbalanced" )settings on wheel inertia and damping the un-powered rotation of the wheels can cause acceleration, which contradicts the law of energy conservation...