Tanks DLC Feedback

[Ex3B 266]

I would implement a velocity limit on the incoming projectiles. Or perhaps a chance of success that is based on projectile speed. An APS would intercept projectiles travelling below a certain velocity. I'd think most tank gun rounds would get through.

LGBs would probably get intercepted, depending on the APS system - tanks could have different APS methods, and differing number of uses. Systems could differ in interception range.

 

Some APS systems are essentially shotguns, while others are more like airburst grenade launchers. I would say that a shotgun system perhaps has more uses, but can't detonate certain larger rounds (like LGBs). Maybe it can intercept higher velocity projectiles. I'd think an airburst grenade launcher on the other hand would be able to detonate projectiles further away. A 1 ton LGB is still going to explode, but maybe it explodes 10-20meters from the tank instead of right on the tank. Ditto on any RPGs, HEAT rounds probably make it through.

Mavericks aren't much faster than Hellfires, so I'd say Macers and scalpels should have about the same chance of being intercepted (with macers still causing more damage, due to the larger warhead, but the damage would be minimal due to the distance)

 

A laser based APS could be its own unit, or large ships. There have been proposals to install a laser in the F-35. Essentially they'd take the B model, remove the lift fan, and use that space to house a laser system. The shaft of the turbine already goes there (to drive the lift fan in the B model), and instead could be used to drive a very powerful generator.

These systems, if they work, could intercept relatively large guided missiles quite far out. If they worked, they might signal an end to Stealth or a reduction in its importance, as they could be an even more effective way of dealing with the threat of guided missiles. They could also, of course, engage "soft" targets.

 

I'd rather leave the laser systems out for now, as they are a bit too speculative and its hard to predict just how they'll change the battlefield dynamics. I wouldn't mind an APS that has a good chance of defeating incoming missiles, which would therefore make gunnery more important, and guided munition based CAS less effective against armored vehicles. It would have very bad implications for infantry though. Infantry would possess no weapons that could reliably defeat even an IFV, much less heavy armor (already using munitions whose lock can be defeated by smoke countermeasures is sketchy). The Wipeout, Blackfish, Kajmon would be the most effective CAS I guess. The 20mm HE rounds of the blackfoot wouldn't be very useful, and scalpels/DAGRs would get intercepted - although I'm guessing unleashing a salvo of 24 DAGRs would overwhelm the APS of just 1 tank. Perhaps DAGRs would become the weapon of choice? larger numbers of less powerful guided munitions?

 

"Shotgun" like

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

 

"Airburster"

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaslon_Active_Protection_System

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_Kill

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drozd

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

 

Laser:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser

 

Deflection/Softkill:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAP-ADS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSS_(countermeasure) (not quite sure what this does, seems to involve jamming)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtora (ditto)

 

[AegisWolf 16]

On 9/16/2017 at 3:56 AM, Ex3B said:

I would implement a velocity limit on the incoming projectiles. Or perhaps a chance of success that is based on projectile speed. An APS would intercept projectiles travelling below a certain velocity. I'd think most tank gun rounds would get through.

LGBs would probably get intercepted, depending on the APS system - tanks could have different APS methods, and differing number of uses. Systems could differ in interception range.

 

Some APS systems are essentially shotguns, while others are more like airburst grenade launchers. I would say that a shotgun system perhaps has more uses, but can't detonate certain larger rounds (like LGBs). Maybe it can intercept higher velocity projectiles. I'd think an airburst grenade launcher on the other hand would be able to detonate projectiles further away. A 1 ton LGB is still going to explode, but maybe it explodes 10-20meters from the tank instead of right on the tank. Ditto on any RPGs, HEAT rounds probably make it through.

Mavericks aren't much faster than Hellfires, so I'd say Macers and scalpels should have about the same chance of being intercepted (with macers still causing more damage, due to the larger warhead, but the damage would be minimal due to the distance)

 

A laser based APS could be its own unit, or large ships. There have been proposals to install a laser in the F-35. Essentially they'd take the B model, remove the lift fan, and use that space to house a laser system. The shaft of the turbine already goes there (to drive the lift fan in the B model), and instead could be used to drive a very powerful generator.

These systems, if they work, could intercept relatively large guided missiles quite far out. If they worked, they might signal an end to Stealth or a reduction in its importance, as they could be an even more effective way of dealing with the threat of guided missiles. They could also, of course, engage "soft" targets.

 

I'd rather leave the laser systems out for now, as they are a bit too speculative and its hard to predict just how they'll change the battlefield dynamics. I wouldn't mind an APS that has a good chance of defeating incoming missiles, which would therefore make gunnery more important, and guided munition based CAS less effective against armored vehicles. It would have very bad implications for infantry though. Infantry would possess no weapons that could reliably defeat even an IFV, much less heavy armor (already using munitions whose lock can be defeated by smoke countermeasures is sketchy). The Wipeout, Blackfish, Kajmon would be the most effective CAS I guess. The 20mm HE rounds of the blackfoot wouldn't be very useful, and scalpels/DAGRs would get intercepted - although I'm guessing unleashing a salvo of 24 DAGRs would overwhelm the APS of just 1 tank. Perhaps DAGRs would become the weapon of choice? larger numbers of less powerful guided munitions?

 

"Shotgun" like

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

 

"Airburster"

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaslon_Active_Protection_System

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_Kill

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drozd

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

 

Laser:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser

 

Deflection/Softkill:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAP-ADS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSS_(countermeasure) (not quite sure what this does, seems to involve jamming)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtora (ditto)

 

You do bring up a good point, in that DAGR would probably be the best weapon for a helicopter to take on a tank with, at least without taking on the APS with the autocannon, first. DAGR are pretty simple, IRL, they're not top attack, and they wouldn't carry a very big warhead, but in Arma, their damage stacks, even against armored vehicles. That might be a problem for the implementation in-game. It's a weapon that is unlikely to pose a serious threat to a tank's armor IRL, but does in Arma. If the devs have APS engage the DAGRs, odds are the DAGR will just run the APS out of interceptors, then kill it anyway. If they don't, it'll still be able to kill the tank with what seems to be a fragmentary warhead.

Devs could maybe either reduce the number of DAGRs carried on a single pylon, or change the damage model of DAGR, so they only do superficial damage to tanks.

[Ex3B 266]

9 hours ago, AegisWolf said:

DAGR are pretty simple, IRL, they're not top attack, and they wouldn't carry a very big warhead, but in Arma, their damage stacks, even against armored vehicles. That might be a problem for the implementation in-game. It's a weapon that is unlikely to pose a serious threat to a tank's armor IRL, but does in Arma.

...

Devs could maybe either reduce the number of DAGRs carried on a single pylon, or change the damage model of DAGR, so they only do superficial damage to tanks.

Well, this also brings up a problem with NATO's heli CAS.... its pretty bad compared to the Kajman. As it is the DAGRs are weaker and seem to miss more than the Scalpels. On top of that the Blackfoot's IR and visual sensors are severely gimped relative to the Kajman's

http://armedassault.wikia.com/wiki/Mi-48_Kajman

"Both IRST and visual detection have a maximum range of 4 km against aerial targets and 3 km against ground targets."

http://armedassault.wikia.com/wiki/AH-99_Blackfoot

"IRST detection extends out to a maximum range of 3 km against aerial targets and 2 km against ground targets. Visual detection on the other hand, is limited to just 2 km for aerial targets and 1.5 km for ground targets."

So the Blackfoot's visual sensor has half the range of the Kajman's, and the Kajman's IRST system has 50% greater range against ground targets.

 

The default loadout of the Blackfoot has no Scalpels at all. If DAGRs are ineffective against MBT armor, then CSAT MBTs would very little to fear from NATO attack helicopters, since the 20mm cannon is also ineffective.

Sure, it can mount up to 6 scalpels, (at which point, it has no chance against a Kajman if they encounter each other), but the Kajman can mount 12. If the Blackfoot has a "stealth" advantage, that is negated by its gimped sensor that will require it to get closer.

 

Making DAGRs ineffective against heavy armor should come with a "non-stealth" version of the blackfoot with stub-wings (EFAMS), and buff to Blackfoot sensors.

With + 2 weapon pylons, and said pylons each able to mount a rack of 4x scalpels, then it would be reasonably well balanced.

 

Also, APS would/should also go on APCs and IFVs, most of which would remain vulnerable to DAGR swarms. The Panther is essentially a MBT hull without a turret or ammo stores for the main cannon (the real-life Namer is said to be more armored than the Merkava mk4), so it should be pretty DAGR resistant.

However, the other APCs/IFVs should be plenty vulnerable to DAGRs and 20mm cannons. Most wheeled IFVs aren't meant to withstand much more than 50 call fire (like the Lav-25, BMP-1, M113, etc), but I get the feeling that most of the APCs in the game are a bit too resistant to 30mm and 40mm APDS rounds.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAV-25#Armor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker#Protection

 

But I guess there has been a trend towards increasing armor on IFVs, which makes sense that most tracked IFVs in 2035 are pretty resistant to 30mm cannon fire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-3#Countermeasures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley (Spaced laminate armor (RPG and 30 mm APDS all around protection [with armor upgrades]).)

 

But... I feel that the power of the Marshal's 40mm needs to be buffed relative to the 30mm. I think 40mm AP rounds should be cutting through IFVs much better than it does in the game.

[DruidicRifleman 13]

12 hours ago, Ex3B said:

Well, this also brings up a problem with NATO's heli CAS.... its pretty bad compared to the Kajman. As it is the DAGRs are weaker and seem to miss more than the Scalpels. On top of that the Blackfoot's IR and visual sensors are severely gimped relative to the Kajman's

http://armedassault.wikia.com/wiki/Mi-48_Kajman

"Both IRST and visual detection have a maximum range of 4 km against aerial targets and 3 km against ground targets."

http://armedassault.wikia.com/wiki/AH-99_Blackfoot

"IRST detection extends out to a maximum range of 3 km against aerial targets and 2 km against ground targets. Visual detection on the other hand, is limited to just 2 km for aerial targets and 1.5 km for ground targets."

So the Blackfoot's visual sensor has half the range of the Kajman's, and the Kajman's IRST system has 50% greater range against ground targets.

 

The default loadout of the Blackfoot has no Scalpels at all. If DAGRs are ineffective against MBT armor, then CSAT MBTs would very little to fear from NATO attack helicopters, since the 20mm cannon is also ineffective.

Sure, it can mount up to 6 scalpels, (at which point, it has no chance against a Kajman if they encounter each other), but the Kajman can mount 12. If the Blackfoot has a "stealth" advantage, that is negated by its gimped sensor that will require it to get closer.

 

Making DAGRs ineffective against heavy armor should come with a "non-stealth" version of the blackfoot with stub-wings (EFAMS), and buff to Blackfoot sensors.

With + 2 weapon pylons, and said pylons each able to mount a rack of 4x scalpels, then it would be reasonably well balanced.

 

Also, APS would/should also go on APCs and IFVs, most of which would remain vulnerable to DAGR swarms. The Panther is essentially a MBT hull without a turret or ammo stores for the main cannon (the real-life Namer is said to be more armored than the Merkava mk4), so it should be pretty DAGR resistant.

However, the other APCs/IFVs should be plenty vulnerable to DAGRs and 20mm cannons. Most wheeled IFVs aren't meant to withstand much more than 50 call fire (like the Lav-25, BMP-1, M113, etc), but I get the feeling that most of the APCs in the game are a bit too resistant to 30mm and 40mm APDS rounds.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAV-25#Armor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker#Protection

 

But I guess there has been a trend towards increasing armor on IFVs, which makes sense that most tracked IFVs in 2035 are pretty resistant to 30mm cannon fire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-3#Countermeasures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley (Spaced laminate armor (RPG and 30 mm APDS all around protection [with armor upgrades]).)

 

But... I feel that the power of the Marshal's 40mm needs to be buffed relative to the 30mm. I think 40mm AP rounds should be cutting through IFVs much better than it does in the game.

Cause the RAH-66 was never intended to be the soul US frontline attack helicopter it more orless was replacing the Kiowa rather then the apache the AH-64 was to remain in service along side it cause it caied more munitions It had attack capabilitys but its ordence load was mostly to defend it's self when bumped by the enemy/.

people keep mentioning the 40mm cannons... Keep in mind were discussing the 40x180 round its ap Capability with AFPSD rounds isn't going to be massively better then the 30x173 since it has only slightly large powder volume. we are not discussing an L/70 40×364mmR the Teliscopic nonsensical round the brits are using is pretty much the same as the Super40 40x180mm.

I am not sure how much better preformance your expecting from A necked up 30x173mm shell tho?

[Ex3B 266]

Well, ever since Arma went fictional, we can forget what the RAH-66 was intended to do, and think about balance. Are we to believe that NATO has no "frontline attack helicopter"? Even if you want to use the RAH-66 program as a guide... as I mentioned... EFAMs, the commanche was meant to be able to equip 2 stub wings which could each mount hellfire racks.

Also, if its meant as a scout helicopter, why are its sensors so gimped?

 

Regarding the 40mm cannon, I wasn't sure what the round was(where is this specified), but I was assuming it was roughly (4/3)^3 times bigger in terms of both the projectile volume and powder volume.

Cartridges really need at least 3 dimensions specified. For example, compare the 300 Winchester Magnum vs 300 Winchester short Mangum. 7.62 x 85mm vs 7.62 x 72.6mm, and yet their ballistics are nearly identical.

[DruidicRifleman 13]

3 hours ago, Ex3B said:

Well, ever since Arma went fictional, we can forget what the RAH-66 was intended to do, and think about balance. Are we to believe that NATO has no "frontline attack helicopter"? Even if you want to use the RAH-66 program as a guide... as I mentioned... EFAMs, the commanche was meant to be able to equip 2 stub wings which could each mount hellfire racks.

Also, if its meant as a scout helicopter, why are its sensors so gimped?

 

Regarding the 40mm cannon, I wasn't sure what the round was(where is this specified), but I was assuming it was roughly (4/3)^3 times bigger in terms of both the projectile volume and powder volume.

Cartridges really need at least 3 dimensions specified. For example, compare the 300 Winchester Magnum vs 300 Winchester short Mangum. 7.62 x 85mm vs 7.62 x 72.6mm, and yet their ballistics are nearly identical.

Yeah they all use ATK Bushmaster MkII chain cannons which means they are chambered in 30x173 and the super40 rounds https://www.gd-ots.com/download/30-40mm MPAB-T-SD.pdf the are pretty similar 30/40 is another name for the 40mm Rounds. its not really specifyed it comes from having staired at ATK bushmaster cannons doing maya modeling till i got a migrain. 30x113 is allot Smaller then 30x173 but they are both "30 mm rounds"

specificly to compair the two rounds Think .308 win and .338win Same base case ones a larger bullet but slower cause of a lower ratio of powder to projectile. one area i would have to agree Is i'd much expect the 40 to have MUCH more devistating HE effects if not similar APFDS effects... Ironically Chartidges used to be Defined by Bullet diamiter... and then Powder load... .44-40 .45-70 .30-30 The later is a .30 inch bullet with a 30grain load of black powder.

And yeah I've not flown the RAH-66 since well before the jets DLC and was mostly riding Front seat so as to the sensors question... Oversight. . . thats my answer. Funny though how the Jets DLC released "Stealth" Versions of the Red/blue for jets with only Internal stores. it would of been nice to have A strike model of the RAH-66 to compensate for the Imbalance... the CSAT bird also has an infantry bay to i honestly prefer it over the other aircraft in KP liberation because i can Drop off a few troops near an objective and then support them which is really nice in mission sets where you are using smaller teams
 

[Ex3B 266]

6 hours ago, DruidicRifleman said:

 as to the sensors question... Oversight. . . thats my answer. Funny though how the Jets DLC released "Stealth" Versions of the Red/blue for jets with only Internal stores. it would of been nice to have A strike model of the RAH-66 to compensate for the Imbalance...

Yep, I think its an oversight as well, I can't imagine that it was a conscious choice to have it so imbalanced with the Kajman's sensors/ give it the worst IRST and visual sensor in the game.

And your "strike model" is basically exactly what I proposed: "a 'non-stealth' version of the blackfoot with stub-wings (EFAMS)". Standard Blackfoot's Radar signature goes down, the "strike model" gets a higher RCS, but two stub wings capable of mounting scalpel (or ASRAAM?) racks in addition to the stuff the internal pylons can already mount (ie DAR/DAGR pods).

Then it would carry about the same ordinance as the Kajman (or even more if the racks could mount 4 scalpels each, whereas the Kajman can mount racks of 3). It would still have a weaker gun (but more ammo, so probably better for taking out infantry), be less durable, and have no troop transport capabilities.

 

Maybe a DAP variant of the Ghost hawk would also be in order. No autocannon, but 4 stations mounting DAGRs or up to 16 scalpels and a larger troop capacity than the Kajman...

But the Kajman would still be the best attack helicopter, with a transport role on top of that...

Anyway, this is digressing. If an APS is modeled, I think DAGRs would become the weapon of choice against armor. If armor and damage values are changed such that DAGRs are ineffective against heavy armor, then they really need to revisit the Blackfoot, or NATO is going to lack any rotary wing assets that are useful against tanks.

[DruidicRifleman 13]

Another DAP Ghost hawk option would be pintle mounted auto cannons but that would be for the Give us ideas for the Helicopters 2 DLC conversation

[AegisWolf 16]

On 9/18/2017 at 6:28 PM, Ex3B said:

Well, ever since Arma went fictional, we can forget what the RAH-66 was intended to do, and think about balance. Are we to believe that NATO has no "frontline attack helicopter"? Even if you want to use the RAH-66 program as a guide... as I mentioned... EFAMs, the commanche was meant to be able to equip 2 stub wings which could each mount hellfire racks.

Also, if its meant as a scout helicopter, why are its sensors so gimped?

 

Regarding the 40mm cannon, I wasn't sure what the round was(where is this specified), but I was assuming it was roughly (4/3)^3 times bigger in terms of both the projectile volume and powder volume.

Cartridges really need at least 3 dimensions specified. For example, compare the 300 Winchester Magnum vs 300 Winchester short Mangum. 7.62 x 85mm vs 7.62 x 72.6mm, and yet their ballistics are nearly identical.

Comanche was originally intended to replace the Kiowa, not the Apache. It was eventually scrubbed with the end of the Cold War and the advent of drones which could do the same job, with less personnel risk. The fact that it was originally intended as an armed reconnaissance helicopter is obvious in Arma, with it's rather light, though effective armament.

 

Whether or not the default loadout can hack it is a moot point, as BI is going to make the loadout editor available in-game any...day.....now....... (right?...Eventually?)

 

If DAGR can't overpower APS and destroy an MBT, as I do not think it should anyway, then the Blackfoot would have to resort to the same 2-step solution as the infantry:

1) Disable the APS turrets themselves with either autocannon, or DAGR or DAR that the APS will not intercept, no longer being a threat to the tank itself.

2) Attack the tank directly with Scalpel.

 

Honestly, if they give us another aircraft DLC pack, I'd love a NATO heavy attack VTOL (Think stealthy Apache x Osprey) and a CSAT answer to the Blackfish, a super-heavy lift helicopter, like an updated Mi-26, (or -12) in addition to a non-stealthy/ESSS/DAP Ghosthawk loadout.

[Ex3B 266]

15 hours ago, AegisWolf said:

Comanche was originally intended to replace the Kiowa, not the Apache. It was eventually scrubbed with the end of the Cold War and the advent of drones which could do the same job, with less personnel risk. The fact that it was originally intended as an armed reconnaissance helicopter is obvious in Arma, with it's rather light, though effective armament.

Yes, as it has already been said. However the blackfoot is a fictional derivative and not bound by that. If they stick with "armed reconnaissance", then that means NATO lacks a front line attack helo, which is BS.

So either we get a beefier "non-stealth"/EFAMS blackfoot variant that can fufill the role of a frontline attack helo, or we need a new Nato helo for the anti tank role.

 

Quote

Whether or not the default loadout can hack it is a moot point, as BI is going to make the loadout editor available in-game any...day.....now....... (right?...Eventually?)

 

Well, depends what that loadout editor allows. At a maximum of 6 scalpels, its probably still going to struggle to get a missile past the APS. The Kajman meanwhile can select a 3x scalpel racks on 4 pylons, giving it 12 scalpels. As it is right now, a single scalpel is not enough to take out a MBT, often not even a tracked APC (although it will do heavy damage). So I figure if a volley of scalpels are launched, the first X would be intercepted by an APS, and the remaining ones would hit. With a loadout of 6x scalpels, I'd be surprised if a Blackfoot could take out 1 tank before needing to return to rearm... meanwhile if an opposing Kajman comes across it, the blackfoot will lose with its lower durability and smaller gun. If the blackfoot mounts ASRAAMs for self defense against other helos, we're down to 2-4 scalpels, and you might as well forget about busting tanks that have an APS with such a small number of AT missiles

 

Quote

If DAGR can't overpower APS and destroy an MBT, as I do not think it should anyway, then the Blackfoot would have to resort to the same 2-step solution as the infantry:

1) Disable the APS turrets themselves with either autocannon, or DAGR or DAR that the APS will not intercept, no longer being a threat to the tank itself.

2) Attack the tank directly with Scalpel.

Well, I'd try and balance it differently. A DAGR rocket may not be able to penetrate the interior of the tank, I could still see them doing enough damage to cause firepower or mobility kills. I Do think they'd be enough of a threat for an APS to engage them (besides, I doubt any APS would be able to tell the difference between an incoming missile with a shaped charge AT warhead vs a HE fragmentation warhead)

Also, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Attack_Guided_Rocket

They seem to use the same warheads as Hydra 70 rockets... just like the shrieker rockets, there should be an AP option for these. Wikipedia lists the M151 warhead for DAGRs, which is a 10 pound HE fragmentation warhead

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_70#Common_warheads

But I see no obvious reason that they couldn't mount the M247 warhead, a HEAT warhead instead.... granted this warhead is about half the mass of the HEAT warheads used in Hellfires.

I think disabling the system itself by spraying it with 20mm rounds could be doable, but I think it would be unreliable, I imagine a round would have to directly hit, or explode very close to what amounts to a pretty small area on the tank - and you'd want to engage from pretty far away so that the tank doesn't use its guns to take the helo out of the sky.

 

Quote

Honestly, if they give us another aircraft DLC pack, I'd love a NATO heavy attack VTOL (Think stealthy Apache x Osprey) and a CSAT answer to the Blackfish, a super-heavy lift helicopter, like an updated Mi-26, (or -12) in addition to a non-stealthy/ESSS/DAP Ghosthawk loadout.

I doubt any other DLC packs will come out. ***maybe*** some AT helicopters come out with the Tanks DLC, but that would have to be a bonus surprise like the carrier that came with the jets dlc.

 

Seems like you essentially want a NATO counterpart to the Xian, and a CSAT counterpart to the Blackfish. They didn't give the Kajman a pacific Reskin, and the Xian is supposed to take the role of the Kajman for the CSAT pacific forces... I guess.

I'd rather see an upgraded F-35 for Nato, and a stealth/non stealth variant for the blackfoot.

CSAT already has the best heavy lift Helo in the game (taru), the only think that the Blackfish accomplishes that the Taru can't accomplish with sling loading is the transport of a Marshal.... and only A marshal, it can't transport any tracked APC, it can't transport the gorgon... I don't even think it can transport a Marid. I don't see the need for a CSAT answer to the blackfish... unless they fix the AI fot the armed blackfish... then maybe CSAT would want an answer to the 105mm flying howitzer

[joostsidy 685]

No offence, but on the forum it is noticable how people sometimes manage to project their personal wishes on any DLC that is being developed. Now it's adding helicopters to tank DLC or talking about highly-improbably second Helo DLC? Next someone who will claim tank DLC will be worthless unless women are included.? ;-P

 

Ok, I am not saying no one should talk about their wishes, but one runs the risk of being disappointed if expectations are ramped up too high. I try to let BI surprise me and trust them to come up with worthwile DLC's. I haven't been disappointed thus far.

 

 

[AegisWolf 16]

7 hours ago, joostsidy said:

No offence, but on the forum it is noticable how people sometimes manage to project their personal wishes on any DLC that is being developed. Now it's adding helicopters to tank DLC or talking about highly-improbably second Helo DLC? Next someone who will claim tank DLC will be worthless unless women are included.? ;-P

 

Ok, I am not saying no one should talk about their wishes, but one runs the risk of being disappointed if expectations are ramped up too high. I try to let BI surprise me and trust them to come up with worthwile DLC's. I haven't been disappointed thus far.

 

 

Yeah, OK, we're on a short tangent. Discussion of APS requires discussion of aircraft armament and tactics, and possible necessary changes. Nobody's expecting or hoping the Tanks DLC to actually include more air assets, beyond tweaks to already existing assets in the accompanying base game patch.

 

8 hours ago, Ex3B said:

Yes, as it has already been said. However the blackfoot is a fictional derivative and not bound by that. If they stick with "armed reconnaissance", then that means NATO lacks a front line attack helo, which is BS.

Yes and no. Comanche's heritage certainly sticks out. NATO doesn't really have a heavy attack helicopter, no. However, they have an attack helicopter drone, with Apex. BI may intend NATO to go for the drone partner tactic for rotary wing aviation: Blackfoot acts as spotter and leader, and lets the drones take the risks in the attack.

8 hours ago, Ex3B said:

Well, I'd try and balance it differently. A DAGR rocket may not be able to penetrate the interior of the tank, I could still see them doing enough damage to cause firepower or mobility kills. I Do think they'd be enough of a threat for an APS to engage them (besides, I doubt any APS would be able to tell the difference between an incoming missile with a shaped charge AT warhead vs a HE fragmentation warhead)

Also, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Attack_Guided_Rocket

They seem to use the same warheads as Hydra 70 rockets... just like the shrieker rockets, there should be an AP option for these. Wikipedia lists the M151 warhead for DAGRs, which is a 10 pound HE fragmentation warhead

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_70#Common_warheads

But I see no obvious reason that they couldn't mount the M247 warhead, a HEAT warhead instead.... granted this warhead is about half the mass of the HEAT warheads used in Hellfires.

I think disabling the system itself by spraying it with 20mm rounds could be doable, but I think it would be unreliable, I imagine a round would have to directly hit, or explode very close to what amounts to a pretty small area on the tank - and you'd want to engage from pretty far away so that the tank doesn't use its guns to take the helo out of the sky.

Yes, DAGR are based on what is essentially simple guidance kit for a Hydra 70 rocket. Yes, they can come with HEAT warheads. Is this likely going to penetrate a tank? Maybe the top or rear armor, maybe not. Unless otherwise stated, I've been assuming that weapons like this are HE-Frag. I'd draw a parallel to 40mm grenades. We don't assume those are HEDP, right? Otherwise they'd be going right through MRAPs.

[Ex3B 266]

7 hours ago, joostsidy said:

No offence, but on the forum it is noticable how people sometimes manage to project their personal wishes on any DLC that is being developed. Now it's adding helicopters to tank DLC or talking about highly-improbably second Helo DLC? ...

Ok, I am not saying no one should talk about their wishes, but one runs the risk of being disappointed if expectations are ramped up too high.

Well, this all started with me saying I thought DAGRs would be the best AT weapon if there are APSs with the tanks DLC - as it would seem that large numbers of missiles would be the solution to getting past them... then discussion about how tank armor should resist the DAGR warheads... which throws the air balance all out of whack.

I don't expect any of the changes I suggested, I hope it comes through mods though. I expect that if an APS is added, it won't come with a rebalance of DAGRs, and the cascading effects that would have on air balance. I expect that DAGRs, if they get past an APS (if APS even exists in the DLC), will be just as effective as they are now.

I'll also note that I said: "I doubt any other DLC packs will come out. ***maybe*** some AT helicopters come out with the Tanks DLC, but that would have to be a bonus surprise"

A bonus surprise is not something that one should expect.

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, AegisWolf said:

NATO doesn't really have a heavy attack helicopter, no. However, they have an attack helicopter drone, with Apex. BI may intend NATO to go for the drone partner tactic for rotary wing aviation: Blackfoot acts as spotter and leader, and lets the drones take the risks in the attack.

Yes, DAGR are based on what is essentially simple guidance kit for a Hydra 70 rocket.

Well, there are several problems with this... the first being that the Blackfoot lacks a laser designator, and can't be a spotter for the falcon drones. The 2nd is that normally the spotter would be the most vulnerable element. The attacker just needs to briefly pop up, fire the missiles, and drop down. A spotter would have to lase the target the whole time. Also those falcon drones are very weak.... but they can mount more scalpels than the blackfoot can.... so you do sort of have a point.

I also haven't found the drone interface and ability for the drone to lase a target to be as good as the old arma2 ULBs. But if using a drone to designate, the quad rotor drone is a far better choice than a blackfoot or falcon. A quad rotor and a Kajman is going to be a far better pairing than a blackfoot and a drone.

 

If an APS is added, they would royally screw up balance if they make DAGR warheads ineffective against MBTs.

 

Quote

Yes, they can come with HEAT warheads. Is this likely going to penetrate a tank? Maybe the top or rear armor, maybe not. Unless otherwise stated, I've been assuming that weapons like this are HE-Frag. I'd draw a parallel to 40mm grenades. We don't assume those are HEDP, right? Otherwise they'd be going right through MRAPs.

Well, it does say HE in the ammo counter. I noted that the 7 round shrieker rockets come in HE and AP varieties. I am suggesting that maybe they make an AP DAGR variety.

Would it penetrate the frontal armor of a tank in real life? probably not, but it would still have a better chance of causing various sorts of disabling damage. It would also make it seem more believable, and introduce some gameplay/balance considerations if one has to choose between HE-frag warheads or HEAT warheads

[joostsidy 685]

9 minutes ago, Ex3B said:

I'll also note that I said: "I doubt any other DLC packs will come out. ***maybe*** some AT helicopters come out with the Tanks DLC, but that would have to be a bonus surprise"

Even with 'maybe' It's the part '.. some AT helicopters come out with the Tanks DLC...', that got me laughing, I hope you understand. I'm not trying to accuse anyone, its many people sometimes feeding off each other creating a gliding slope with maybe some AT helicopters come out with the Tanks DLC as a bonus surprise, and also as bonus surprises added interior to the USS Freedom to store tanks, new naval assets to ship tanks to shore, female crew to drive tanks, one type of tank from each decade of the 20th century, full interiors of the tanks, including interiors of tank crew, more civilian types to be crushed by tanks, overhauled healing system for wounded tank crew, new terrain for tanks and OFP Resistance campaign rebooted with tanks. ;-)

 

Are you reading this BI? I think my list has some good suggestions. :-)

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

1 hour ago, joostsidy said:

including interiors of tank crew

 

If you want an AO rating.

[AegisWolf 16]

26 minutes ago, Night515 said:

 

If you want an AO rating.

Arma 3: Anatomy Infantry DLC

[Ex3B 266]

On 9/22/2017 at 11:55 PM, joostsidy said:

Even with 'maybe' It's the part '.. some AT helicopters come out with the Tanks DLC...', that got me laughing, I hope you understand. I'm not trying to accuse anyone

Well, I hope you understand that I was trying to scale back someone else's hopes for a 2nd Helo DLC.

 

As far as what my actual expectations are right now:

No changes to helicopters at all.

As far as I know, an APS feature is still speculative. No APS (an APS is not unreasonable, but I wouldn't expect it), no need to rebalance helicopters.

If an APS comes out, I suspect that the existing Helos have to deal with it... no changes to make DAGRs ineffective against MBT armor, no EFAMs to allow the blackfoot to mount more missiles (DAGRs would be enough), no additional AT helos because a DAGR equiped blackfoot would be good enough, as would a kajman with 4 racks of scalpels.

 

Now DLCs often come with tweaks unrealeted to the DLC theme, and content loosely related to the DLC theme (who would have expected cluster bombs for aircraft from a civy focused DLC?).

Example of tweaks:

Quote

Tweaked: Flight model of the Black Wasp II plane (it should be more stable and have a more correct AoA behavior)
Tweaked: The durability of fighter jets was improved
Tweaked: Slightly reduced the maneuverability, damage and countermeasure resistance of MR missiles
Tweaked: The distance of the MR missile proximity fuse was increased
Tweaked: The intensity of Flora, Fauna, and Wind sound layers was adjusted (Stratis, Altis and Malden)
Tweaked: The AMRAAM missiles were replaced by ASRAAMs in the Wipeout AA loadout
Tweaked: The collision shape of characters when crawling to the sides was improved

So it wouldn't be unrealistic to think that there could be minor tweaks to other assets, but I absolutely do not expect entirely new helicopters. It would shock me if they came out with some sort of future-apache equivalent for NATO. I agree the wishes of others such as blackfish equivalents for CSAT and Xian equivalents for NATO were going way beyond the scope of reasonable expectations.

 

Some tweaks that would not surprise me so much (but I still would not expect, in order of decreasing likelehood):

* changes to the sensors of helicopters, particularly as this relates to tank combat (in particular, the gimped blackfoot sensors)

* changes in the loadouts/possible loadouts of helos/CAS planes. An example could be that *IF* an APS is present, then *it would not be absurd to think that maybe* the kajman would be able to select racks of 4 scalpels on its pylons, whereas now it can only select racks of 3 scalpels.

* splitting DAGRs into HEAP and HEAT or HE and AP types

^ the above would essentially be just text editing of the configs, and maybe duplicating 1 texture and changing a color to distinguish AP from HE.

 

adding EFAMs would require modifying a 3d model, making entirely new textures, shading, pylon positions/configurations, tweaking RCS/"stealth" aspects... etc etc... I would be very surprised by a stealth/non-stealth model of the blackfoot. Still, its more likely than entirely new attack helo assets.

[wattywatts 76]

On 22. 9. 2017 at 11:55 PM, joostsidy said:

Are you reading this BI?

 

Yes, we are. And we appreciate all the ideas and your enthusiasm.

But please don't get too hyped about APS, it's highly unlikely it will get in game.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

1 hour ago, wattywatts said:

 

Yes, we are. And we appreciate all the ideas and your enthusiasm.

But please don't get too hyped about APS, it's highly unlikely it will get in game.

 

Any particular issues reventing it's implementation?

 

EDIT: Idea, a possible "radar" for tanks that shows incoming missiles and from what direction, and has an alarm much like Jets. Not sure how authentic this is however.

[SuicideKing 233]

I basically forgot that this thread existed until i realised i had posted here months ago... but I ended up making a thread in the development branch sub-section on the topic:

 

Request for expansion of infantry AT assets in view of Tanks DLC

 

...so here it is again, where it actually belongs :D

[R3vo 2654]

Great progress so far on the PhysX. Driving tanks seems to be much more stable, reliable and responsive (turning etc.)

 

 

 

Last but not least, a question. Are there any plans on redoing tank sounds? I've just driven a tank using JSRS mod and it adds so much to the atmosphere. The vanilla sounds compared to that sound just incredibly bad. Alot of stuttering and so on.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

19 minutes ago, R3vo said:

One more thing I noticed is this:

I think this is an issue caused by Arma 3 Aegis, though I have no idea why it duplicates them despite only one being selectable (it just skips to the next action). If not, it's an issue with vanilla.

[R3vo 2654]

14 hours ago, Night515 said:

I think this is an issue caused by Arma 3 Aegis, though I have no idea why it duplicates them despite only one being selectable (it just skips to the next action). If not, it's an issue with vanilla.

 

Alright, I totally forgot that I loaded the game with Aegis. Thanks for the clarification!

[Vasily.B 529]

18 hours ago, R3vo said:

Great progress so far on the PhysX. Driving tanks seems to be much more stable, reliable and responsive (turning etc.)

 

 

 

Last but not least, a question. Are there any plans on redoing tank sounds? I've just driven a tank using JSRS mod and it adds so much to the atmosphere. The vanilla sounds compared to that sound just incredibly bad. Alot of stuttering and so on.

+1, basicly there could be just 4 improvements in terms of sound ;
- Tanks sounds itself
- Distance, from where tank are hearable should be increased (to match JSRS, just cant play without it right now)
- Interior weapon sound should be muffled again (i'm asking this since year i think, they are no more muffled since 1.60 or 1.62)
- And finally - all vehicles could profit from this - more smashing sounds (when vehicle smash some object by driving on it)

Thats all. I know you dont have much people to AI programming, and as far as i remember there is one guy responsible for sounds configs, give him new tasks ^^^^ ;)

[texkaz 33]

I dont care what you do with the DLC as long as you dont break the mods or atleast give some of the big modders like CUP and RHS a heads-up