Tanks DLC Feedback

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

On 4/18/2018 at 2:38 PM, Ex3B said:

Just a very very very minor nitpick:

Why is the Rhino listed as an APC, but the Nyx is listed as a tank? Neither one carries infantry. Neither one is a main battle tank. They are both armored fighting vehicles... maybe they should do like earlier Armas and just combine everything into "armored", after all, the tanks category is not very full. It would basically be the APC category + 1 AA vehicle, and 1-3 tanks (NATO: Slammer/Slammer Up; CSAT: Varsuuk, Angara, Angara K, AAF: Kuma, Nyx variants)

 

Or combined all of them into "AFVs"

 

Or alternatively, "Tracked" and "Wheeled"

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

On 18.4.2018 at 5:11 PM, oukej said:

Rhino
* 600kW
* 3000 Nm @ 1600 RPM
* 2400 max. RPM
* 6 gears, 1 rev.; drive ratios: 5.7, 3.1, 2.4, 1.72, 1.20, 0.82; final drive 4.8
As u can see it's quite buffed when compared to its African real-life inspiration :)

 

 

 What is the suggested weight empty / combat ready?

[kromka 40]

Does somebody know how to map analogue steering to the tracked vehicle?

Steering wheel doesn't work at all with anologue left/right but maybe there is a way to map a pedals to achieved some kind od left/right track analogue throttle?

 

BTW there is ridiculous issue when six wheeled, couple of tons vehicle can be stopped from 100 km/h to 0 km/h by a road works sign or other small objects this kind.

Also armoured wheeled vehicle can explode (!) when you will try to go forward when you are locked by a small stone you can't pass.

[rga_noris 3]

BUG: Group will not follow waypoint after entering vehicles assigned using addVehicle.

 

I've added a task in the feedback tracker with a repro mission, but I wanted to check to see if anyone else has noticed this either:

 

If any group is given a waypoint and has a vehicle in either "Wheeled_APC_F" or "Tank_F", they will not complete their waypoint. The vehicle has been assigned to the group using (group) addVehicle (vehicle). They will enter the vehicle appropriately, but they will never move to the waypoint. Any vehicle of any other class will work just fine.

 

Note, this is not due to the commander position, as not all of the vehicles in those classes have a commander position. I first noticed this when going from Main Branch to the Tanks Update (not RC, official update).

 

EDIT: One work around is to wait until after the units have entered the vehicle. Then change their group (steps below) and reassign the waypoint. They will behave as normal.

 

Bug Report: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T128274

[Wiki 1558]

Yup.

The Rhino is really a disappointment for me:

 

• not fast
• main canon is the same as a MBT hence not such a tank buster
• very weak even with ERA (in the DLC showcase, against the MBT, it's a 1 hit kill, everytime)

Concerning the FCS, still annyoing issue.

We can't just have the laser range, when I use laser it automatically engage FCS.

 

For instance, I had a vehicle, I lase for it.

Then it stops.

I have good range, crosshair right on the middle of it, but as I didn't refresh the FCS, the shot went 3 meters away from the target.

 

With this system, we gotta keep spamming the laser range to pursue a target - quite annoying.

 

Isn't there a way to have both laser range AND FCS not linked together?

[RealCombat 10]

@Wiki

Hurr a wheeled AFV can't brawl with MBT's durr
Hurr FCS doesn't work like aimbot durr
Hurr I can't just circle around MBTs like light tanks in WoT durr

All You do is just nag on new features even before You learn how they work.
Just learn to play, Jesus.

Spoiler

[Wiki 1558]

8 hours ago, RealCombat said:

@Wiki

Hurr a wheeled AFV can't brawl with MBT's durr
Hurr FCS doesn't work like aimbot durr
Hurr I can't just circle around MBTs like light tanks in WoT durr

All You do is just nag on new features even before You learn how they work.
Just learn to play, Jesus.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Pfffff

Learn to read dummy.

[stanhope 411]

12 hours ago, Wiki said:

The Rhino is really a disappointment for me:

 

• not fast
• main canon is the same as a MBT hence not such a tank buster
• very weak even with ERA (in the DLC showcase, against the MBT, it's a 1 hit kill, everytime)

Correct me if I'm wrong but:

• the rhino is faster than all the MBTs
• MBTs are also designed to take out other MBTs hence the rhino having the same gun isn't that surprising by the way the rhino has ATGMs, which will kill any MBT with a top down attack with 1 rocket
• it's fast, so it can't weigh much, they haven't invented armor that doesn't weigh anything yet.

12 hours ago, Wiki said:

With this system, we gotta keep spamming the laser range to pursue a target - quite annoying

Or maybe, just maybe one could manually compensate for vehicles moving.  It does require a little bit of practice and isn't point and click I know.  But it should be doable.

[a_killer_wombat 120]

17 hours ago, Wiki said:

Concerning the FCS, still annyoing issue.

We can't just have the laser range, when I use laser it automatically engage FCS.

 

For instance, I had a vehicle, I lase for it.

Then it stops.

I have good range, crosshair right on the middle of it, but as I didn't refresh the FCS, the shot went 3 meters away from the target.

 

When engaging a moving vehicle which keeps accelerating/decelerating/turning, I've learnt that it's best to lase the target but then tap PageUP or PageDown which will disable the FCS's auto leading so I can then fire the shot while leading the target manually instead. I've found better success using this method when firing at an erratic vehicle. In this way, PageUp and PageDown acts like a "drop target lead" button which I believe the IRL modern FCSs have.

[Wiki 1558]

39 minutes ago, a_killer_wombat said:

 

When engaging a moving vehicle which keeps accelerating/decelerating/turning, I've learnt that it's best to lase the target but then tap PageUP or PageDown which will disable the FCS's auto leading so I can then fire the shot while leading the target manually instead. I've found better success using this method when firing at an erratic vehicle. In this way, PageUp and PageDown acts like a "drop target lead" button which I believe the IRL modern FCSs have.

 

Yup, I think I'll do that instead.

[Wiki 1558]

5 hours ago, stanhope said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but:

• the rhino is faster than all the MBTs
• MBTs are also designed to take out other MBTs hence the rhino having the same gun isn't that surprising by the way the rhino has ATGMs, which will kill any MBT with a top down attack with 1 rocket
• it's fast, so it can't weigh much, they haven't invented armor that doesn't weigh anything yet.

 

- It's not much faster - especially offroad.

- Yeah, I get that 2nd point, but I mean: it's said to be a tank buster, but it's just like another MBT, just weaker.

- Then again, I don't find it that fast and the ERA protection are not really useful against direct hit.

 

To be honest,  I'd rather be in a MBT than in a Rhino.

Doing pretty much the same damage but better protection, the choice is easy.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

[a_killer_wombat 120]

22 hours ago, Wiki said:

To be honest,  I'd rather be in a MBT than in a Rhino.

Doing pretty much the same damage but better protection, the choice is easy.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

 

I don't think the Rhino was intended to fight MBTs face to face. The term "tank destroyer" is outdated and gives the wrong impression (I honestly think it was a mistake for BI to label it as such). The real-life Rooikat, which the Rhino is based on, is actually intended to be a reconnaissance vehicle rather than a front-line brawler. It has relatively high mobility and a low silhouette making it ideal for stealthy scouting ahead of a main force (such as an MBT company/platoon), identifying enemy positions while remaining undetected and then reporting this intel back to the main force so that they can exploit any weaknesses in enemy defence. With the Rhino's powerful main gun, it has the ability to engage an unsuspecting high value target, if the opportunity presents itself, and then immediately retreat to cover and concealment. The gun also helps the Rhino in self-defence if surprised during a scout mission.

 

The Rhino does have some key roles to play on the battlefield, it's just perhaps more specialised than the do-it-all MBTs and thus should be employed with more consideration.

 

EDIT: The Rhino also has the benefit of being both light enough and small enough to be para-dropped by the Blackfish which makes it the perfect armoured vehicle to support paratroopers behind enemy lines. This is a similar role to which the real-life 2S25 Sprut-SD light tank plays for the Russian VDV (russian paratroopers). 

[Tankbuster 1744]

53 minutes ago, a_killer_wombat said:

 

  "tank destroyer"

 

 

[lugiahua 26]

On 4/27/2018 at 8:38 AM, Wiki said:

 

- It's not much faster - especially offroad.

 

 

Wheeled vehicles are never great offroad IRL either, it's just how track/wheel works.

Abrams are actually faster offroad than much lighter Stryker.

 

And as I already said, FCS is fine. I have played a lot of tank sim like Steelbeast, current Arma3 FCS is very similar to that one.

My friend was a real world tank gunner, also agrees that current FCS is realistic enough, except lack of airburst for MPT rounds.

 

----

BTW, it seems there was plan to include programmable rounds at some point, or at least the script was there.

MPT from autocannon sometimes failed to explode at impact if incorrect distance was imput, this is very noticeable when using 40mm gun on NATO APC.

[jone_kone 158]

 

Considering the new damage mechanics and additional weapons in the Tanks DLC i would recommend that a SACLOS HEAT missile magazine would be added for the Titan.

 

The Titan AT system is currently challenging to balance in missions. The "Fire and forget" combinded with thermals operation means that it can easily distort the balance by on gunner taking out several tanks... and also basically requires no skill of the player (lock and fire). Adding a new magazine is a really small addition, but would help mission builders to balance the titan according the player count and available assets on the map. 

 

The Titan already has the M_Titan_AP SACLOS missile so adding a magazine would "only" be a matter of copying the configs and adding a heat warhead. This would give a option for better reach weapon than with the NLAW and MAAWS, but still require the gunner to track the target until it hits (thus being exposed and vulnerable for counter attack). Also it would nicely balance the current CSAT Vorona.

 

[pooroldspike 129]

I bought Tanks DLC recently and just wonder if there are any new keys I need to know about above and beyond the standard game keys, is there a list somewhere?

For example I found out by accident that Ctrl-R starts/stops the Nyx (Recon) radar spinning.

PS- what does the radar DO anyway, does it just spin for eye-candy purposes?

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

2 hours ago, pooroldspike said:

I bought Tanks DLC recently and just wonder if there are any new keys I need to know about above and beyond the standard game keys, is there a list somewhere?

For example I found out by accident that Ctrl-R starts/stops the Nyx (Recon) radar spinning.

PS- what does the radar DO anyway, does it just spin for eye-candy purposes?

Ctrl+R turns radar on/off on all vehicles that have radar. So the Nyx (Recon), some AA vehicles, some planes and some helicopters (I may have forgotten something).

Radar works as it should (limited by gameplay reasons, engine).

You can detect both air and ground targets with radar dependant on the radar range and the target size/ stealth.

Detected targets can be sent to other friendly units via datalink so they don't have to use their own radar if they even have one.

 

So for example the Nyx Recon can provide targets for the Nyx AA that doesn't have a radar and is otherwise only able to detect targets with it's IR sensor that is pretty limited in range.

This combination is more effective than just the AA variant sitting somewhere.

 

Having your radar active leads also to you being locatable by passive radar sensors of jets and helicopters. Aircraft with anti-radiation sensors can even target the radar source what is not a at the moment though because there are no anti-radiation weapons in game. There are mods for this though.

[maxl30 81]

I know, we are slow with it but I would really like that for the future ...

 

[maxl30 81]

On 2.4.2017 at 10:53 PM, nightovizard said:

Am I the only one that would like to have more variants of the actual vehicles? I remember there were screenshots before the release where they showed variants of the vehicles which never made into it. For instance:

 

 

Would it be that hard to just release an update and include those vehicles they already showed in ingame screenshots? I mean, they could even add more variants using the method they have been using: Sharing turrets between factions. The NATO and CSAT AA vehicle use the same turret, but they have different chasis, so if they decided to do it that way, why not expanding the vehicle variety even further? It would be fairly easy.

For instance, look at the first image. Vehicles like the marshal, gorgon and marid could take advantage of that, and they could become very useful fast mobile artillery vehicles. They would just need to combine what they have already done and change the camo textures so they match with the faction. Now look at the second image link, I am not too fond of using a tank variant with a coil gun, instead I would much rather let the marshall, gorgon and marid have it, I'm not crazy, after all the stryker would be pretty much the same:

 

Now, another thing that would be very welcome is for the blufor faction to have an IFV with autocannon and ATGMs, so I would really appreciate if the devs included a Panther or Marshal variant, with the gorgon and kamysh turret. Mostly because when playing blufor on vanilla multiplayer, I have seen people use gorgon and kamyshes rather than their own faction vehicles, and that feels really weird. All the factions share turret in design, yet bluefor is lacking something and forcing the player to use other faction vehicles? I think something has to be done there, and maybe the dlc tanks will be the time for it. So ATGMS for blufor vehicles please, even more if we have to face redfor tanks which have ATGMS too. Visual example:

 

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/88226010754602403/A204907AB1087C19AE8AD33318C14B4BF8199620/

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/88226010754603200/CECA5316BB8AC805484DD5595DCC9709029A57AD/

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/88226010754409787/214E76E61A9B8EE2158E40D3157311ED60AC7875/

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/88226010754408759/68A45A8528249ED401B07DC6FD202BDDB5C2ABC9/

 

Now, another thing it would not be hard to add is the F-35, which you showed early in ingame screenshots too:

 

 

I'm not a fan of the F-35, really. But its VTOL capabilities were really appreciated, and the F-35 from the image looks phenomenal, so could its addition be possible for the Jets dlc? Or maybe as a free update seeing you have it already prepared to be ingame. I know you can find it in mods, but there are many servers out there that only use vanilla stuff, so I think it would be something nice to have in vanilla game.

 

Now when it comes to tanks themselves, I do not think interiors are that important, mostly because you are looking through optics, and all the action happens outside the vehicle. It is not like an aircraft cockpit where you need to lock around you, so I am not really sure why people are asking for detailed interiors when you are not even going to see them at all. Quality over quantity for a DLC is something I agree with, but spend your resources wisely, and I do not think spending a lot on interiors would be wise. I would rather have 2 tanks that look amazing from the outside, than just 1 that looks amazing both outside and inside, where I am never going to be looking at.

 

So, focus on improving the ones we already have ingame, (for instance improving the damage and collision model and other related stuff people have stated in other comments), and adding features such as a ''Trophy'' system. I am not sure which tanks you are going for, but if you do the same as in the jets dlc (2 for bluefore, 1 for opfor, 1 for independent) I would say:

 

Blufor:

 

Near future improved abrams tank: I am too used to the Abrams tank that it would be weird not to have it, and it would complement the merkava tank really well. The M1A2 SEP could be the best option for it, but as you have done before you can do your own inspired by it. for instance:

 

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/tomclancy/images/3/38/EndWar_JSFTANK.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110621005417

 

PL-01: As a secondary tank it would do so well in the Blufor side, its stealth design fits both in the faction and the future context. I would not use it as the main battle tank due to its infantry fighting vehicle origins, but it is a perfect addition.

 

OPFOR:

 

T-14 ARMATA: The devs were looking at it in the scanning the horizon 2017 video, so I am pretty sure they are going to include it. Maybe there is the possibility for other ARMATA platforms to be included too? Although that does not seem to be necessary at all.

 

Independent:

 

Challenger 2: Since they have British an German stuff, and already a German tank, I think a British addition would be a good addition. Another option could be the Turkish tank altay, or maybe the k2 black panther, though maybe that last one is too good. But AAF already got a leopard tank which many say is the best in the world so...

 

If you are only going to add 3 tanks, then just do them for blufor and redfor, I would much rather have 2 new tanks in either blufor and opfor than 1 in each 3 of them. Independent side does not have artillery neither any AA vehicle nor gunship, so for what reason would they get another new tank? It is better to give them vehicles they lack for balancing purposes. And you can do it the easy way:

 

-  for the AA vehicle take the FV-720 Mora chassis and put the cheetah turret with their own camo on it.

- for the artillery take the MBT52 Kuma chasis and put the M4 scorcher turret with the faction's camo on it.

- although it is not indispensable, you could also give the panther turret to either the gorgon or mora as grenade launchers on apc and ifvs is something they also lack.

- reskin the prowler to fit in the AAF faction too.

- for the gunship a new one would be needed, which means that it would be the hardest thing to do. Unlike blufor and redfor there is no need for a VTOL for independent side, as it wouldn't make sense. But there is always the option for a xi'an or  blackfish reskin option to fit independent side if it is needed.  I'm surprised BI has not yet done any private military company for independent side since it is set in the future. But well, for the AAF gunship there are few options:

 

At first, diffrent turrets for NATO and CSAT on artillery and anti air tanks, yes it musst come, now !

 

Second, i love the Nyx, good small and cheap option, the mortar variant would be nice.

I think the AAF have a most german ground vehicle arsenal because the Brits misplaced theirs arsenal to homeland before the independence of altis comes (if a country becomes independent, it may keep the military stationed there).

But yes a Challenger would nice to see in A3, maybe like a standalone mod.

 

In the CSAT i am missing only a Tank Destroyer or a Engineering Vehicle or for both sides a real Antimine Tank.

 

I think the Abrams has no future, its a big logistical problem, slowly and have the gun from the Leopard 2A6, tanks today musst be fast and agile.

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

A tank DLC that prevents the microsecond-synchron bailout of the crew at the same fraction of second the tank is receiving damage above a certain level would be a big step for human kind....well, for BIS.

And NO, that parameter that should stop bail out at all is not the solution.

 

The rest of the bling-bling BIS can keep until they fixed this.

 

And stop tanks from going airborne.

[Varis 34]

Having 2 out of the 3 new vehicles actually not be tanks but IFV/AFV may seem strange but I think it makes a lot of sense. Mostly I've played KotH & CTI and ARMA3 so far has seemed quite tank centric, whereas the real militaries place heavy emphasis on lighter IFVs.

 

In computer games there is often an "apex predator syndrome" as I call it in various forms. Players and developers prefer the more expensive, capable and charismatic units over the variety of low-to-mid tier stuff. Maybe it dominates the meta or just looks more sexy and sells more copies. About 1 year back when I started KotH I felt that vehicle servers were dominated by tigris & slammer tanks.

 

It's a bit different today and it feels that variety has increased for some reason. Also I notice that ARMA already incorporates a number of AFV - but I think they are underrepresented in actual gameplay. It could be due to balance and issues with individual vehicles. Maybe many don't have a clear role like the nyx perhaps does, then there are things like the mora which I guess after the update has started to slide around quite a bit - it's like you're doing drifting instead of driving a tracked vehicle at times, and the handling is a bit too twitchy for many.

 

I've also felt jeeps are neglected, the basic minigun/MG jeeps don't seem to have much of a role besides infantry transport. Creating AT variants sounds like a really good move - again I think we don't see them much in actual gameplay for some reason. There could also be jeep or truck mounted AA platforms, just an idea.

[G.Drunken 24]

I wasn't sure if to post anything, since the last reply is close to being a year old, but nevertheless, I wanted to bring this out.

BI has a very good engine running ArmA III. Now, I'm not talking about the performance side (hahaha :'D ), but rather about the possibilites they can do with it. Right now, I do feel like nothing's happening regarding this specific topic. I like the implementation of the Pylon system they have added quite some time ago and it was a right thing to do.

Now, since I'm not the only one mentioning/suggesting different variants of a specific vehicle/s, people are right about this. Some vehicles do need more variants, most importantly, modular vehicles need different variants. As an example, let's take the Patria AMV, better known ingame as AMV-7 Marshall.

 

Right now, the vehicle only has the IFV version, better known as the Badger IFV ( South African Armed Forces ) , liscenced bought for their purposes. Yes, I do know why games use different names for the objects/vehicles/weapons we see in game and that is to avoid lawsuit engagements, so that's the least of BI's worries. Anyways...

This specific vehicle can be fitted with different modules, either for combat purposes or logistical support. Combat-wise, as an APC it can have a CROWS .50 (12.7x99mm) HMG or maybe even CROWS 40mm GMG ( I don't know honestly), as an IFV, it already uses the Badger module, but can also be fitted with a 105mm weapon system, as Patria was built to be a heavy weapons platform, which means it can include the mortar variants ( one of which was in the alpha version of ArmA III, but removed due to unknown reasons (at least, that's what I know)) and can be fitted with an AA missile sytem.

Now, regarding logistical support, due to its capabilities, mobility and quite good armor thickness, thus being amphibious, it can be used as a MEDEVAC vehicle and a armoured repair and recovery vehicle, which are the only 2 non-combat variants I'm familiar with at the moment.

And this is just one of some modular vehicles ArmA III has in its arsenal. There's the MSE-3 Marid ( Otokar ARMA ) and AFV-4 Gorgon ( Pandur II ).

Now, where exactly am I going with this? Well, the actual models of modular vehicles look astonishing, but things can be simply changed by adding the same/slightly similar module system ( just like the Pylon settings for jets/helicopters ) that can change the vehicle's module, changing it's role and purpose to what was originally designed for. I am aware it takes more than just a few codes and textures and modeling, so I'm not here to point at BI and tell them they are doing something wrong. I'm just saying that there are many things they can achieve with such an engine.

 

I mean, just imagine if more work was done on these different variants and smaller details, perhaps the players would appreciate that more and would play the vanilla game even more. Then, there's a huge opportunity for modders that enhance the gameplay of ArmA III, the same ones that make us stick with the game. The things they can implement on such vehicles could be never-ending.

Most importantly, releasing it as a free-platform update would be suited better for such a take, rather than just showing it up ingame as a DLC. We are aware you need to make money regarding income and there's a risk if such a project would not be profitable, but maybe further improving the game and working on such details will bring more players into it and more content released from the workshop itself.

That's it from my side. Thank You for reading this.

STA | G.Drunken

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

P.S.

 

I'm not sure if anyone's gonna read this, but hell, it's worth a shot.