Tanks DLC Feedback

[Matosh 34]

Should original poster make a poll, so we can vote which features should be top priority?

 

I mean, we are talking about a DLC not an expansion pack. Here are posted many suggested features. Judging from the Helicopters DLC, only few of the features could make it into. Unless developers are super ambitious and are ready to deliver us a huge overhauled armored combat platform update with this DLC, since after all there is a quite of bit of time between now and DLC's release date, and also being the last DLC in the roadmap.

[MrStregatto 31]

Critical Features:

-New Damage Model for vehicles. (Stuff that @RAM does, Also no more vehicles just completely exploding just because they hit 0 hp, Ammo Cookoffs, disabling certain components of a vehicle (such as engine) if it takes a good hit, etc. )

-Working Penetration for Missile weapons.

-New Tracked PhysX.

-FCS for Vehicle weapons

 

Suggested Features:

-Interiors for Vehicles that do not have them (APCs and MBTs) At the VERY least, for drivers.

-Reworked Thermal Sights for better environmental contrast.

I would ask for the same things but I even a couple of things:

-The old vehicles present in the pre-alfa screenshots, like the railgun tank and mortar APC;

-And a drone Tank, maybe for the NATO forces.

[borch 11]

 

 

-And a drone Tank, maybe for the NATO forces.

 

There will be a drone version of the T-14. No need to add a new one. The inside of the tank changes, the outside stays the same.

 

 

Well, i have nice idea to point out all features we want, and to be easier to develoeprs to handle.

Point out every feature you need, by qouting ours posts, si in the end,all they need will be in one post. What do you think?

For now they will need to search whole thread (9 pages FOR NOW).

For example i start with;

- feature A

- feature B

- feature C

 

Let's Create an online Word.

[Vasily.B 529]

Also i would see better crew behaior - this i ask for 2 years and made my addon for fix it;
- Prevent tank crew to disembark beacuse of tank, wheel or engine damage, its very silly.
- Teach them to repair those components.

You can modyfy my addon.

[Beagle 684]

Regarding an eventual implementation of APS active protection systems.

 

Some missions already use a script, but that script works lieke a "shield" rather than an APS.

APS will always have troubles with two incoming missiles or rockets at a time (russian AT-9 and AT-13 were designed with ann automatic ripple interval fire mode for that reason)

because the system needs to reload after every use.

 

also the adverse effect on nearby personel or eqipment or turned out crew must be incorporated.

an APC with active APS is basically a threat to the dissembarked infanrtry it is supposed to carry and support.

 

and last but not least: make tracked vehicles steerable with analogue input (Joystick) again, Currently analogue input and standard left right are conflicting each other and tracked class does not respond to analogue vehicle steering input at all, only wheeled vehicles work.

[merlin 17]

Combat Mission: Black Sea is a strategy game set in 2017 and features some very interesting and fairly grounded depictions of tanks.
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=335&Itemid=579

Abrams are upgraded with ERA and israeli trophy active protection systems, likewise for Russian and Ukrainian tanks with their respective domestic APS. Of note is that the active protection systems are not of uniform quality across all factions, they differ in number of charges, field of coverage and effectiveness.

 

LASER WARNING RECEIVERS
Most tanks are outfitted with laser warning receivers - when a laser radiation from a rangefinder is detected the turret will slew towards the direction of the enemy and smoke will automatically be deployed.

 

MULTISPECTRAL SMOKE
Speaking of smoke: tanks will deploy multispectral smoke to counter thermal imaging; in the game this is depicted as darker smoke so the player can differentiate multispectral and conventional smoke. The following video is an excellent demonstration of this and shows the smoke in the thermal and visible spectrum.

 

AIRBURST AMMUNITION
The more modern tanks (M1A2, T-90, BM Oplot) depicted in CM:Black Sea feature air bursting munitions. These shells have datalinked fuses that explode in the air; this allows the tank to take out troops in ditches and trenches as well as ATGM teams in cover that might otherwise require a direct hit. The US Army is currently developing a 120mm shell to replace MPAT, canister, HEAT and obstacle reduction rounds; it will feature a programmable fuse for air bursts. These airburst munitions are not a fluke, they are the future and they are here to stay. I think if the tank DLC features engine improvements for tanks the modding community will be very grateful and the game will be better off, however the 2035 setting of the game should not be betrayed by featuring an armored environment that hasn't changed since the 1980s. Features such as active protection systems, laser warning receivers and air burst ammunition (multispectral smoke was around in the '80s) are already fielded and create compelling gameplay elements and scenarios.

 

https://www.army.mil/article/98946/Army_developing_new_120mm_AMP_tank_round

some ammo types to consider:

• Barrel-launched ATGM (well depicted in RHS)
• Canister round
• Obstacle reduction round (would not be useful in game)
• Smoke round (Challenger 2 is the only vehicle i'm aware of that uses these but they're an interesting idea)
• programmable airburst round

 

[Blafirelli 24]

Canister shot would be nice, but considering ArmA 3 doesn't even have shotguns, there's imho small chance it gets implemented.

[R3vo 2652]

Canister shot would be nice, but considering ArmA 3 doesn't even have shotguns, there's imho small chance it gets implemented.

 

Had the same idea but discarded it because of the shotgun issues.

[reyhard 2082]

Had the same idea but discarded it because of the shotgun issues.

Dunno, I managed to get working canister rounds in RHS with submunition. Tried at first with realistic amount of pellets (~1250) but lag was tragic. As a compromise, RHS canister rounds use ~125 pellets with little indirectHit & Range value and it works without lag (yet, it generate some network traffic in MP - since it's not a weapon which you fire more than once within 6 seconds it's kind of playable). If anyone want to check, M1028 are equipable for M1 tanks through eden attributes

    class rhs_ammo_flechettes_m1028: rhs_ammo_flechettes
    {
        hit = 7;
        indirectHit = 4.2;
        indirectHitRange = 1.75;
        typicalSpeed = 1000;
        airFriction = -0.00045;
    };
    class rhs_ammo_M1028: rhs_ammo_M1069
    {
        simulation = "shotSubmunitions";
        submunitionAmmo="rhs_ammo_flechettes_m1028";
        //real life round has 1150 tungusten balls
        submunitionConeType[]=
        {
            "randomcenter",
            115
        };
        submunitionConeAngle="0.009 * 120"; // dispersion
        triggerTime=0.01;
    };

[nitsujjustin 1]

Before to Eliminate bad consequences

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T120795

)))

 

Bohemia should be embarrassed by this

[lex__1 422]

In Arma3 the movement of a trunk and tower, as on old tanks.
On the modern tank nobody twists a tower and  trunk.
All actions with a tower and a trunk are made by mechanics, automatic equipment and the onboard personal computer. The tipper-of-shooter, or the commander, fix the purpose in optics. The trunk and a tower go synchronously (not synchronously) to an optical look of the shooter (or the commander). The ballistic calculator adds adjustment relatively
- weather conditions
- movements own
- movements of the purpose
- distances to the purpose
- like ammunition
The commander from the optics can carry out capture and management of the main trunk.

 

It happens seldom. Shooting accuracy from the tank vanishes.
Did aiming on a reference point of the previous shot. The sight stood on "Auto".

I don't know the reason of bad accuracy, desynchronization in the north or not horizontal position of the case of the tank at hill top.

https://youtu.be/aW71VIcOarA

 

Has understood in what a problem. Has reproduced a situation in the editor.
When range of a shot costs in AUTO, it will work well distance more ~ 1600 meters. Distance closer ~ 1600 meters, it is necessary to switch off AUTO.
AUTO not absolutely AUTO.
How to include AUTO when there is nearby no opponent on whom it is possible to include it?
Where this secret button?

https://youtu.be/8RUAk_L3zSo

 

Tried to resolve these issues, but my tickets beat are closed.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83302

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83874

The optical center of a look has to be the main weapon emplacement. Here doesn't matter at what distance from what party from a trunk, there is an optics. All calculations are made by the onboard personal computer, his task to put a bullet in the optical center of a look of the shooter.

[Damian90 696]

Hello guys, 

I just wanted to stop by and say thank you for some of the splendid ideas you've posted in the thread. Let me expand a bit more on the current state of Tanks DLC. As it is the last release listed on our Roadmap 2016-17, we're not really that far in the development. Actually, the brainstorming phase is now happening with internal meetings and researches. Your feedback is crucial in this stage, as we're carefully monitoring the community requests. Not only on the Feedback Tracker and similar channels, but also here, in this very thread.

 

The goal is to make a backlog of all the suggestions and then select what fits best the vision of the product and what our resources and time frame allow us to do. While there are some very obvious things which will be present in Tanks DLC (e.g. a tank), the rest is still unknown and yet to be decided. Please keep up and provide us with your ideas, be them gameplay features, scenario concepts or simply something you would love to see in the DLC. Afterall, we're all in the dev team thrilled to drive the new beasts as you are!  :)

 

Guys few things about current NATO heavy armor.

First, IFV-6 Panther just like it's real world counterpart Namer, should be equipped with Trophy, just recently IDF command made decision that all Merkava Mk4's and Namer's will be equipped with Trophy-HV active protection systems.

 

 

Second thing is, I really hope you will consider making a proper IFV variant of Panther with RCWS-30 turret. You already have both vehicle and turret models, so it should not be a problem to combine them, it would really be good thing, cause NATO faction lacks a proper IFV.

 

 

And thanks for the team to keeping an close eye to the suggestions community makes. ;)

[lex__1 422]

DEV today.

AUTO \ Self-directed charges or what is it?
https://youtu.be/i7mlUwiduzE

When the Demolition charge how to include AUTO?

Or make pressing of the right button of a mouse included AUTO on any distance, and on any object.

[digitalgeo 21]

Hi, here's my feedback: add a repair animation for vehicles.

 

The current repair animation is the engineer healing himself when on foot.

 

Pretty please :)

 

DigitalGeo

[OMAC 254]

I would think an obvious first task for Tanks DLC is to extend recent AI-pathfinding improvements to tracked vehicles, and mitigate the "cardboard tanks" issue.  Another idea is to update tank damage models, investigating the hit-point damage system as Real Armor Mod attempted to do.

 

I hope TANK DLC team carefully looks at Iron Front Liberation 1944 and sees how that game enhanced the feel of armored combat using A2 engine (damage models, innovative gun ranging/zeroing mechanics, different tank-specific sighting optics, etc.), and also at RHS armor in terms of updated FCS. 

 

Other than those things, I hope the DLC will focus on innovative missions as its core premium content.

[Beagle 684]

A consideration that came to my mind after sending 9 Titan missiles after an T-100 in BECTI CTI, and despite the defensive attempt beeing pushed out of two towns by the same player tank: If a future Tank DLC redefines the way armoured assets behave in the game, we need a change or Addon for Infantry AT weapons too. Something like the Javelin from ArmA II with a dedicatede top attack mode.

The AT capabilities of Helicopters are not good neither, since in ArmA III the AT missiles are more in the range of guided FFARs

[x3kj 1247]

A consideration that came to my mind after sending 9 Titan missiles after an T-100 in BECTI CTI, and despite the defensive attempt beeing pushed out of two towns by the same player tank: If a future Tank DLC redefines the way armoured assets behave in the game, we need a change or Addon for Infantry AT weapons too.

See and this is why i dont understand the craze of many people here over implementing active protection systems... these will produce the same effect as you described, except 5 times worse. If infantry and other lighter vehicles can't damage tanks reliably anymore, combined arms player ops (adversarial) will have significant balance problem.

[sammael 366]

I think we need  option for active protection systems. This make game more realistic for a lot of people who want realistic gameplay. For example active protection systems don`t save tank from

 The RPG-30 "Kryuk" 

Unlike the RPG-27 however, there is a smaller diameter precursor round in a side tube, in addition to the main round in the main tube. The precursor round is fired shortly before the main round and acts as a decoy, tricking the target's active protection system (APS) into engaging it. The APS is not ready to engage again until 0.2–0.4 seconds later, allowing the main round time to hit the target.

 

Also not shure about protection from Javelin top down  mode

[x3kj 1247]

Also not shure about protection from Javelin top dopwn  mode

As if the engineers and designers who built these wouldnt think about such an obvious threat.

[Vasily.B 529]

As if the engineers and designers who built these wouldnt think about such an obvious threat.

Well, egniners designed active protection and APS for some reason. If we have javelin, we also need APS's, as we play tanks too (we - players).

 

I think we need  option for active protection systems. This make game more realistic for a lot of people who want realistic gameplay. For example active protection systems don`t save tank from

 The RPG-30 "Kryuk" 

 

Not sure about it. main warhead will not penetrate Standard armor + ERA, so it need smaller warhead to destroy ERA first, but active protcetion system (like ARENA) should detect at least one of warheads (and defend vehicle against it).

 

[sammael 366]

main 105mm warhead is  tandem shaped charge  ;)

 Israel develop new sytem 

Rafael military-industrial corporation has developed a defense system, "Trench Coat", against the RPG-30, to supplement the existing Trophy. It consists of a 360-degree radar that detects all threats and launches 17 projectiles, of which one should strike the incoming missile

[Damian90 696]

In reality RPG-30 project was cancelled, because it was discovered it can be easy defeated by a simple change in active protection system software.

APS like Trophy have a radar signature of every type of anti tank ammunition, and can recognize it by it's RCS signature and also velocity. So Trophy will ignore inert rocket fired by RPG-30 before the main warhead.

 

That small rocket is also inert because of it's calliber it's immposible to place there any meaningfull shaped charge warhead, and even if there would be one, it's penetration would be pathetic.

 

So in general RPG-30 was one huge failure.

 

As for balancing active protection systems, especially hard kill ones, is easy, such systems have limited capacity of interceptors.

 

I talked during MSPO exhibition with Rafael company employee, and he told me that Trophy-HV used on Merkava Mk4M and Namer, have max 4 interceptors in each of it's modules, this means 1 interceptor ready on the launching post, and 3 more in autoloader.

 

Of course more interceptors are stored inside vehicle, but they need to be manually reloaded by vehicle crew in to the launchers autoloader system.

 

Of course there are other types of active protection systems, for example the vanilla T-100 Varusk have on both sides of turret launchers that look like Drozd APS interceptor launchers. Contrary to Trophy Drozd does not provide 360 degrees protection, neither top attack protection, and have a limited number of interceptors, only in the launchers (there are no spare interceptors inside vehicle).

 

So T-100 should have also 4 interceptors per each side of turret.

 

 

This is protection arc provided by Drozd active protection system.

 

And then there are of course other systems, for example Quick Kill just like trophy provides 360 degrees protection, but also full top attack protection, and that type of APS uses Vertical Launchers System, which means that it can simultanouesly fire multiple interceptors in to multiple threats from all directions, what's also more important, if VLS launchers on one side of vehicle are empty or damaged/destroyed the launchers on the other side can still provide 360 degrees protection.

 

So there is plenty of active protection systems with various capabilities and limitations.

[merlin 17]

See and this is why i dont understand the craze of many people here over implementing active protection systems... these will produce the same effect as you described, except 5 times worse. If infantry and other lighter vehicles can't damage tanks reliably anymore, combined arms player ops (adversarial) will have significant balance problem.

 

Active protection systems are seen as a major oversight on behalf of BIS because the Merkava in game has the visual features of an APS with no function in game, furthermore the game is set in 2035 and yet all of these major advances in technology remain unacknowledged. One thing to bear in mind is that it is not feasible to armor many of the components of the active protection system. The radar and dispenser must be exposed in order to function, this means hammering a tank with an autocannon, heavy machine gun or grenade launcher would damage the sensitive components of the APS and leave it vulnerable to ATGMs.

[sammael 366]

In reality RPG-30 project was cancelled, because it was discovered it can be easy defeated by a simple change in active protection system software.

I am surprised that the engineers make such a stupid fail in 2012. I thought iniciator (little) rocket completely copy the signature (velocity, thermal,exhaust gas e.t.c) of a main rocket and cheating  APS software.

[Damian90 696]

I am surprised that the engineers make such a stupid fail in 2012. I thought iniciator (little) rocket completely copy the signature (velocity, thermal,exhaust gas e.t.c) of a main rocket and cheating  APS software.

 

It's immposible for such a small rocket to mimic RCS or thermal signature of larger main projectile. 

 

Modern active protection systems have control software that can recognize such things and compare them in it's data base. For example Trophy for detecting, identyfing and tracking a threat uses AESA radars. AESA radars also have another advantage, even if you hit the antenna with let's say rifle projectile, sure it will get damaged, but will still work, although performance might drop slightly. To completely get rid of it, you need to completely destroy the antenna.

 

And there are other types of active protection systems like for example AMAP ADS, ADS system uses as sensors IR/UV electrooptical sensors, and such sensors also might compare the size and general shape of possible threat.

 

The thing is that designers of RPG-30 never had any access to a modern active protection system like Trophy, ADS and similiar. At best they tested it against obsolete systems like Drozd or Arena.

 

Ofcourse active protection systems have their limitations as well. Let's take for example Afganit which is further evolution of Drozd.

It does have improved sensors in form of AESA radars and IR/UV electrooptical sensors, however it's weakness are interceptors, because of their design they do not provide 360 degrees protection, and also do not provide protection against top attack munitions.

 

So as you can see, everything have it's strong and weak points.