Tanks DLC Feedback

[froggyluv 2136]

 

 Is this Damage write up still relevant? https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Damage_Description

 

Or didnt BI upgrade their armor system? Reason I ask is that page was last modifed very recently and still seems to recommend the RAM mod

 

signed,

Tank N00b

[Stalkermaster2015 60]

I'm hoping we get a mini tank campaign that is about 2-4 missions long with some nice tank combat. Would be nice instead of generic just adding vehicles and mechanics and one scenario. I mean still add some more tanks and other items but just something a little extra would be nice.

[R3vo 2654]

2 minutes ago, Stalkermaster2015 said:

I'm hoping we get a mini tank campaign that is about 2-4 missions long with some nice tank combat. Would be nice instead of generic just adding vehicles and mechanics and one scenario. I mean still add some more tanks and other items but just something a little extra would be nice.

 

I doubt that BIS is capable of creating a nice tank campaign..pointing at Showcase Tanks....

[lexx 1364]

At best we'll get another tank related showcase scenario, just like it has been with the other DLCs released so far. But truth told, I also don't really have any idea about what exactly could be done that wouldn't just end up in a weird clusterfuck at the end of the day.

Oh, and the currently existing tanks showcase is probably my least played one of them all, just followed by the underwater showcase...

[Stalkermaster2015 60]

On 20/07/2017 at 10:07 PM, R3vo said:

 

I doubt that BIS is capable of creating a nice tank campaign..pointing at Showcase Tanks....

Sadly your right. Though if they put abit of effort into it they could do it. I don't believe they put enough effort into that showcase unfortunately.

[trent 14]

I really hope they fix the Tank AI. Crewman take so long to notice enemies right in front of them. Often you can see the turret waver as it tries to decide between targets.

[Antilochos 106]

Possible for us to get that scud truck from the old days back?

Technically not a tank, but who cares? Just loved that truck. It looked good, was a nice asset for missions and of course; launching a scud was great fun.

[Vasily.B 529]

Meanwhile on Altis....
http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p746/vlad_8011/Arma 3 28.07.2017 13_40_48_zpsmbmedcrl.png

[Zygzak191 52]

Quote

ENGINE 

• Added: New "drivingstickRight", "drivingstickLeft", "drivingWheel" animation sources for armored vehicles

From today's Development Branch Changelog

[Ex3B 266]

On 6/16/2017 at 0:32 PM, D. Tropa said:

The bonus vehicle. Something for the FIA and Syndicate to use. Something that would make you go "Errrr, they've got a tank" when your on a spec ops COIN mission. Nothing fancy, but still a threat. The T-34 and M4 Medium tank are touted out, but by 2035, they would be REALLY long in the tooth, (and require a four man crew, and would want to be the loader?). My choice would be the AMX 13, either the 75 or 90 autoloading gun (thus a three man crew). It's a tiny tank, barely taller than a man, so easy to hide in bushes or in defilades. A great ambush tank, and highly mobile. Its also thinly armoured, so the cannon mounted on IFV should make quick work of it if spotted. But equally so, the 75/90 guns should be able to deal with IFV, and could worry an MBT if it got around the back (think the Tiger battle from Fury here).  And it would also fit on Altis or Tanoa, since it's feasible that a newly independent Altis/Tanoa brought a bunch from the French in the 70's, and somehow they got into FIA's/Syndicate's hands. 

Yes, they would be old and obsolete... but if we consider that the T34 started production in 1940, and nobody complained about it being in Arma2's 2018 Takistan... 78 years later, is it really so bad if we have them in 2035 at 95 years old? In many areas technological progress slows down as technology matures, and 100 year old stuff is nearly as good as modern stuff. Heck, the B-52 is going to be over 100 years old before they retire it. Likewise, we had the Lee-Enfield in Takistan, which was introduced in 1895, some 123 years after its introduction.

Of course equipment also lasts a lot longer in the desert than on a tropical island - stuff would rust really badly if it wasn't made to be resistant to rust.

 

Do you just like French tanks, are you French? Given that the island of Tanoa seems to be a former french colony (at least based on things like their police being called the gendarmerie), I suppose some tanks from the end of french colonialism would be fine. I was thinking that since its a fictional placce in the pacific, with WW2 plane wrecks, that there might be some allied equipment left over than Syndicate salvaged. 

So I was thinking US tanks of the pacfic theater, or post war tanks of occupation forces. Possibly taking tanks dating from the "1st indochina war": 

http://indochine54.free.fr/cefeo/afvs.html

but the french tank industry/designs hadn't really recovered from WWII.

I could see M24 Chaffees being used - according to wikipedia:

"While long removed from American and British service, it is still found in service as a light tank in third-world countries, along with other hardware from that era."

The jungle environment of the pacific favored light tanks, and not heavy tanks, so maybe even and M22 locust.

Maybe we ditch the idea of a "tank" for them, and give them a LVT-4 amtrack... which would presumably be built to be more corrosion resistant.

 

As to the difficulty of maintaining them... yea, true. Syndicat is supposed to be a drug cartel, and they can be pretty resourceful. We could see far more than pickups with an M2:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/most-amazing-narco-tanks-2015-2?r=US&IR=T

 

 

On 6/26/2017 at 4:04 AM, Beagle said:

Regarding WW2 tanks...we had them in ArmA II anf they were nt really a big thread to even a half aware and also outdated BMP-2... the T-55 did not do any better. "old" Regular 25mm Autocannons would turn a T-34 into swiss cheese before it could react with a penetration power of 100mm RHA with M919 APFSDS-T.

Even fairly modern AT infantry weapons shredded them easily at safe ranges.

That's sort of the point... the same way putting viper up against syndicate would result in syndicate getting torn up by a force with body armor, superior weapons and optics, thermal vision, etc.

Yet despite all that, as in Arma2, if you didn't bring AT weapons, and encounter even the out of date armor, its going to go badly. If we take an Apex campaign-like scenario with a small CTRG team carrying 5.56/7.62 mm rifles, and at most for the ranged weapons a 40mm grenade launcher with a chance of scavenging RPG-7 launchers probably firing just HE rounds - if any armored vehicle shows up with even a heavy machine gun, its going to be a challenge.

Likewise, such an armored vehicle would tear through the LSVs.

 

But I also wouldn't complain about a more capable tank. The syndicat has AKMs, which are pretty comparable to AK-12s, the main difference is in the accessories that can be mounted.

So maybe, as suggested, an AMX-30. But it gets no "accessories". No RCWS - at most a machine gun for a commander/loader that requires the crew to turn out to use (like the loader MG of Arma2's M1A TUSK). No rangefinder, and no ability to zero the sights (by pg up/pg down or whatever one remaps it to), just different marks in the optics (as on the RCO/ERCO/ARCO etc) rifle optics).

No FLIR view, at most NV sights.

Some of that may be a bit harsh, but a lot of the advantages of newer equipment cant be properly modeled in arma (like active defense against ATGMs, much as stealth isn't such an advantage in arma either)

 

I would like to see a range of capabilities... but nothing rising to the level of the Kuma, or making syndicate nearly a peer with NATO/CSAT as the AAF is.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

I want itttttttt...

 

 

[lexx 1364]

From the latest SITREP:

Quote

Subscribers to our daily Dev-Branch changelog may have also noticed several improvements related to armored vehicles. As there were some speculations about the purpose of the changes (e.g. new animation sources for vehicle crew), we can confirm that these are connected to development of the upcoming Tanks DLC. We feel it's too soon to introduce any details about what the DLC will bring, yet we already experiment with multiple approaches and it feels only fair to unleash improvements that community modders can immediately benefit from. Standard bisclaimers apply: some of these changes are rather experimental and may not appear in the final DLC due to various reasons. Despite that, we are excited by Tanks' progress and look forward to share more details in the future!

[kremator 1065]

Tanks DLC just needs to be ONE THING ..... the ability for a tank to reverse.

[pulstar 55]

14 hours ago, kremator said:

Tanks DLC just needs to be ONE THING ..... the ability for a tank to reverse.

 

Especially for AI! And we would love some WoT/WT style direct controls because why not? It's hard to crew tanks with human players.

 

And one missing feature that should be introduced is hydraulic control of the turret. Current implementation feels like rotating a frying pan.

[lex__1 422]

Tanks and PhysX, animation, aren't present time it to be engaged...... When will this problem receive attention? https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123725

Create Subtask to this ticket.

I apologize for my pickiness and increased attention to the small details on the tanks. But this problem does not allow the tanks to acquire high cross-country ability on uneven ground and obstacles.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T126556

Bad ability to overcome obstacles and problems of interaction between the wheels of tanks and the surface.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123725

 

[KizzouUl 21]

Israelian Sabra

 

 

Russian T-14 Armata

 

 

Polish PL-01 

 

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

@lex__1: right, something that never worked. It was much better in the early A3 beta because the pussy-anti-rollover-feature was not implemented at that time. Driving tracked or wheeled vehicles at that time over a obstacle with height > suspension capabilities resulted in an flipover. And there was no magic force that slowly turned you back to the wheeles.

But in general: whatever BIS implemented by the use of sw-modules carrying "physics" in it, the result is far far away from real live physics.

 

@KizzouUl: wtf you want to suggest by posting pics of crappy tanks or non-existing mock-ups here?

[The_Tactician 56]

just give me that Polish PL-01  its killing me lol

[Vasily.B 529]

54 minutes ago, The Man Without Qualities said:

 

@KizzouUl: wtf you want to suggest by posting pics of crappy tanks or non-existing mock-ups here?

I woldnt say it about T-14

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

Whatever CSAT may get, just please be sure to give them a green hex texture source! Please!

[lex__1 422]

2 hours ago, The Man Without Qualities said:

@lex__1: right, something that never worked. It was much better in the early A3 beta because the pussy-anti-rollover-feature was not implemented at that time. Driving tracked or wheeled vehicles at that time over a obstacle with height > suspension capabilities resulted in an flipover. And there was no magic force that slowly turned you back to the wheeles.

But in general: whatever BIS implemented by the use of sw-modules carrying "physics" in it, the result is far far away from real live physics.

 

@KizzouUl: wtf you want to suggest by posting pics of crappy tanks or non-existing mock-ups here?

I'm not talking about the way back to the wheels. I'm talking about the bad:
 - physics, which turns over tanks, in inappropriate situations
 - physics, stopping the tank at full speed, in inappropriate situations
 - about wheels that can not carry the tank on obstacles

I'm interested in the contents of the DLS tanks, but there will be damage if the tanks do not get:
 - improvement of physics
 - good overcoming of obstacles
 - a working system to protect against missiles (at the moment the defense takes away one missile, the first rocket).
These characteristics reflect the basic capabilities of tanks. This is not enough or does not look right. I do not want the new tanks to inherit these problems.

[Wiki 1558]

BTW, will this be only about MBT or also APC and IFV?

[lexx 1364]

Nobody knows yet... but my guess is MBTs.

[inlesco 233]

16 hours ago, lexx said:

Nobody knows yet... but my guess is MBTs.

If we know nothing about this upcoming DLC, it's a mystery why this thread is called "Tanks DLC feedback"... There's nothing to provide any feedback on since there's nothing official. 

[lexx 1364]

Well, that's because these threads were always named like this.

 

PS: It's wrong that we "don't know anything". What we know is this concept art: