Tanks DLC Feedback

[Pan Samogon 197]

On 02.01.2017 at 6:00 AM, AegisWolf said:

Upgrade the coax-es to .338 for M2A1 and 9.3 for T-100, using the 6.5 in the M2A1 would be analogous to using an M249 as the M1A2's coax.

 

Well,IRL 6.5 prooves itself as mulifunctional cartrige,which can into both sniper purposes and general purposes. But since reasons it's not adopted.

btw,you may look at China today.They're using unified 5.8 cartridges for everything.Marksman Rifles,Assault Rifles,LMGs and GPMGs.

 

338 Norma it's like portable lightweight 50 cal,but without anti-material potential.

[omL 24]

Very light, short range, single-use AT weapons like the RPG-26 or the M72 LAW/AT4(kinda light ) would be welcome. I know they aren't tanks but I think they are very important factors in the survival of tanks, especially in urban combat.

[odie0351 67]

6 hours ago, chortles said:

odie0351's got a good point -- heck, as much as people may believe that "air superiority jets" is a niche that doesn't merit filling, they're the only aircraft type stated for the Jets DLC, soooo...

 

The main vanilla armor gaps I can think of are (as odie0351 also speculated) AA/AT vehicle options, but then the main ways I can think of to fill them would be new turrets for existing APCs/MRAPs which (as variants of existing vehicles) should not be behind the paywall like all-new armor would be, while "legacy armor" seems thematically out of bounds with Bohemia's seeming favoritism for BLUFOR/REDFOR (just when did we last get a GREENFOR exclusive?)...

While I agree that if the new assets are gap fillers they shouldn't have to be bought, the history of the game to this point shows us that would still be the case. The helos delivered in the helicopters DLC were (in my opinion at least, as both NATO and CSAT severely needed heavier transport capabilities) necessary aircraft types that should have been part of the vanilla lineup instead of content for a paid DLC, same with the MMG's from the marksman DLC (because they actually filled a missing gap in the weapons lineup for their respective factions where as the rest of the weapons were just nice alternatives to the already present marksman/sniper type weapons). That being said, I personally won't really mind paying for gap fillers at this point if that does end up being the case because the way I see it, its as much about paying to support the features as it is buying pretty new things.

 

What would be absolutely awesome in my opinion, is if they used this DLC as an opportunity to remedy the turret/asset sharing amongst the factions while at the same time getting AAF caught up on asset types, maybe a sweet little AA number and a self propelled howitzer of some type. not likely, but one can dream

[lexx 1363]

I actually wouldnt mind existing assets with different turret types. Would be really hard to sell this as a dlc to many players, though...

 

Cant think of a gap in the armor lineup, though. New AA-tanks don't really make much sense to me, and a second MBT for the factions.. why? The only thing I could think of right now is a mobile rocket artillery for CSAT, but that doesnt really sound "tank dlc" to me.

 

Another thing would be some UAV-like-controlled tank, but again i feel like people wouldnt like that.

 

These ass-old tanks like T-something are out of scope for A3's setting unless you give them to AAF/FIA... looks kinda forced then, though. It's like oooh captain obvious of military games.

 

Really dunno. I just hope BI won't wait with more information again until 1 week before the dlc gets released. 

[zukov 490]

Quote

These ass-old tanks like T-something are out of scope for A3's setting unless you give them to AAF/FIA... looks kinda forced then, though. It's like oooh captain obvious of military games.

but a serious rework on T100 is needed, is very ugly

[R3vo 2654]

19 minutes ago, zukov said:

but a serious rework on T100 is needed, is very ugly

 

Yes, the hull needs more details and also some animated parts like the Merkava has.

[Vasily.B 529]

Maybe T-90MS instead T-100? This would be beautifull.....

[Pan Samogon 197]

1 hour ago, Vasily.B said:

Maybe T-90MS instead T-100? This would be beautifull.....

 

They're both are prototypes/non-serial... whats the diffirence?

 

[Vasily.B 529]

For me - large. T-90MS exist and its produced for export. T-100 (a'la black eagle) stayed only in prototype phase. At last we can see MS driving and operational, not as in t-100 case.

[redken 20]

Here is a good overview on Hardkill Active Protection Systems(APS):

 

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.de/2017/01/hardkill-aps-overview.html

 

 

[AegisWolf 16]

On 1/12/2017 at 4:07 AM, Pan Samogon said:

 

Well,IRL 6.5 prooves itself as mulifunctional cartrige,which can into both sniper purposes and general purposes. But since reasons it's not adopted.

btw,you may look at China today.They're using unified 5.8 cartridges for everything.Marksman Rifles,Assault Rifles,LMGs and GPMGs.

 

338 Norma it's like portable lightweight 50 cal,but without anti-material potential.

Well sure, if China's using one round for everything, they're simplifying their logistics quite a bit, but that comes with some drawbacks, especially considering the hypothetical NATO is already supplying their medium machine guns with .338 belts. Assuming the 5.8 is a reduced recoil rifle cartridge like the 5.56 or 5.45, it's probably not going to have medium-long range ballistics and stopping power to compare with the 7.62x51, 7.62x54, .338, or 9.3, which is what you want in a vehicular application, unless it's an urban assault vehicle.

 

Additionally, I'd like to see APS and functional reactive armor for armored fighting vehicles, barrel-launched ATGMs, (Russians have been doing this a long time, Merkava IV (M2A1) is compatible with the LAHAT, an Israeli barrel-launched ATGM, these are not only intended for use against tanks, but also low-flying helicopters) improved (maybe indirect fire) ATGM play, light tanks, (Based off of Marshall and Marid) and mortar-carrier vehicles with 120mm mortars, for CSAT and NATO, though I bet you could put one in a pickup truck.

[Pan Samogon 197]

46 minutes ago, AegisWolf said:

Well sure, if China's using one round for everything, they're simplifying their logistics quite a bit, but that comes with some drawbacks, especially considering the hypothetical NATO is already supplying their medium machine guns with .338 belts. Assuming the 5.8 is a reduced recoil rifle cartridge like the 5.56 or 5.45, it's probably not going to have medium-long range ballistics and stopping power to compare with the 7.62x51, 7.62x54, .338, or 9.3, which is what you want in a vehicular application, unless it's an urban assault vehicle.

 

This prooves you didn't read my post properly.And... your military knowledge outdated.

1)The ingame 6.5 round I compare to IRL 6.5 Grendel.They have various bullets,starts from 90grans and up to 130grans.Light bullet better for automatic weapon,while heavier - for marksmanship.And actually,it's close to average 7.62x51 by characteristics,but recoil still acceptable.So,the real reason,why this wasn't adopted IRL is because will be costly to adopt it around a whole NATO block.

2)As well as 6.5 Grendel Round,China also uses heavier bullets for GPMGs and Sniper Rifles.And why the hell think it's all because of supply problems?They had 7.62x54R machineguns.And this ammo isn't sort of difficult to produce or difficult to find.

3)LWMMG was been created because soldiers in A-stan reques man-portable weapon for long range combat.But since USA still uses crappy M2(AKA 68 kilo,and each 100rnd belt is 13.),they didn't have something for this purpose.Thats how this MG been created.As example - Russian military never even think about such kind of weapon,just because they're already have 25 kilo HMG,which able to fire from bipod,and 18kilo automatic grenade launcher.

[turtletank13 0]

I would like to Armored Vehicles like ee-9 cascavels for infantry support and also being a capable to take on tanks like T55s. 

[chortles 263]

On 1/12/2017 at 10:59 AM, odie0351 said:

While I agree that if the new assets are gap fillers they shouldn't have to be bought, the history of the game to this point shows us that would still be the case.

You're mis-paraphrasing me. ;) I said I-believed-clearly that what shouldn't be behind the paywall would be variants on vanilla chassis as opposed to new chassis altogether -- for example, in addition to the paywall heavy transport helicopters the corresponding game update added an alternate Orca loadout/look and a 'civilian Hummingbird', both not behind the paywall.

 

As such the difficulty for me in speculating about Tanks DLC paywall vehicles is... well, where is the "near-future MBT" gap to be filled anyway? At least if the DLC were named Armor we'd have (more) names to name...

[lex__1 422]

 

[Scoebuddy 7]

Does anyone else want to see a better camo system for armor? Many tanks use foliage to disguise themselves. It would be awesome to see variants like this, but more covered:

 

While on the subject of stealth, it would be cool to have a mechanic that relates vehicle spotting by AI vehicles to overall thermal signature. I thought this was already in the game and tried to make a mission where you ambush enemy tanks kind of like the tiger scene in "Fury", but even if you start in the ambush position and have no heat generated, the enemy can spot you from 2-3 km away. It's just ridiculous.

 

[Scoebuddy 7]

As for content, I would really like to see a bunch of attachments, like water transport and snorkels for amphibious assaults and those things they throw on the from of Abrams to clear mines (sorry I don't know what they are called, ha). Also, having the ability to have an infantry squad hop on and ride on the tank would be super cool too.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

FFV open-air seats for tank? sounds sweet

 

 

[filler 15]

Hello,need more anti-air pantsir"C1

 

[computer 113]

Damage to different parts. Similar to what RHS has done with their reactive armor. Parts of armor that can be destroyed to inflict more damage. Shells bouncing off armor. Better feel of weight for vehicles, with the tracks spinning in dirt. Overpressure, and more tweaks and effects when shooting the main cannon.

 

Things like these, add weight and realism to the battlefield. Not really that interested in the 2035 tanks. Rather the functionality, tiny details and realistic features.

[x3kj 1247]

i have another feature wish:

 

damage to "modern" tank features:

stabilization -> selfexplanatory... damage removes this feature

powered turret traverse/elevation -> damage means resorting to a handwheel -> vastly reduced rotation speeds

electronic sensors -> no display on tank "radar", no locking, no ballistic computer, no range finder, ...

optics -> blinding a turretcrew in one or more vision spectrums (daylight, NV, IR).

 

Maybe have tanks have a backup daylight-only optic.

 

Such handicaps would allow for more interesting and challenging gameplay. It does even offer the possibility for new scenarios where you have to nurse a crippled but functional tank home using basic technology. It could even be used by mission makers to change the capabilities/power level of tanks vs other units

 

Please consider that vehicles may not have such features, as such they should not be able to be affected by it (e.g. early WW2 tanks do not have powered turret traverse, so they should not lose rotation speed)

[OMAC 254]

A relatively minor thing:  add jungle/woodland camo to NATO (Pacific) armor from Apex!

[mickeymen 324]

I read the posts in this thread and I see the desires, desires, desires for the upcoming Tank DLC. New weapons, missiles, armor, protection, etc.
Why do people forget, or do not see, that today (v1.66), the physics of tracked vehicles in Arma3 is in deplorable condition!?As seems to me, It looks like a real shame.  As it seems to me, people should first want to have a normal physics in the game for all tracked vehicles. And then everything else.
 

Ten minutes ago, I played in Arma3, using tanks and in one mission(20 min gameplay), two tanks turned upside down onto the flat place of terrain , One tank forever stuck on a small stone fence and  several times the tanks accelerated suddenly, without any reason and jumped forward, flying as light cartons!!!

My God, how many bugs for a one game!?

 
@BIS and with this sh..t you want to do DLC!? Tickets with these problems already were created than not once times. 

At least about two years, these tickets are ignored!
I myself have created these tickets, but these problems are no one is going to solve! 

 

I found some tickets:

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T117728

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T82457

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T81804

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T82601

 

@BIS, why is this still not fixed?

Instead of solving this problems, you AGAIN do the new DLC, which as usual adds to the game a new errors/

What, as a result, we will see in this Tanks DLC? Most likely it will be a new jumping /stuck/flips tanks.

This is cool! but, a normal person will not have to buy this.
You can add new tanks, weapons, sensors, missiles, armor, protection, etc, but if the engine problems of physics are not be solved - it will be porn 

[filler 15]

arma 3 This is not skyrim, played enough in the A3 1,600 hours in the king of the hill mode and want to say I have all available add-ons that the game A3 is very bad and that bis team have many years it does not care about the views of ordinary players and fans of the "simulator"

[lexx 1363]

"This game is very bad" ... "i have played 1.600 hours". Lel, something doesnt fit here.