Tanks DLC Feedback

[SuicideKing 233]

I couldn't read through the whole thread, so expect some repetitions. Everything below is regarding vanilla arma.

 

1. Interiors please. Tank drivers have a boring job.

 

2. Related to #1, drivers should be able to see GPS overlay and as such have a wider FoV

 

3. Tank physx glitches (flipping and stuff)

 

4. Reliable and transparent damage model.

I can't begin to state how frustrating it is as a mission maker to try and balance missions. How much damage will an RPG42-HE round do to a vehicle? How much will the AT round do to a Kamysh, or to a Kuma? How does the PCML compare to the RPG42-AT, RPG7, Titan, etc? There's no indication except tedious trial and error which gives different results with different weapons and vehicles at different angles. Is distance between target and launcher a factor? I don't freaking know.

 

TL;DR: Make it obvious somewhere what kind of round does what type of damage, and what part of a vehicle receives what damage, how much is enough to take out a hitpoint, how many rounds will probably lead to explosions or crew death. Don't make me dig through config files for this information.

 

EDIT: See Wargame: Red Dragon's system for example - Shells/Missiles get AP/HE values, tanks get directional armour values on top of hit points. KE/HEAT is also modeled. Most importantly, players know the values because it's obviously presented to them.

 

5. More older tanks please. I have noticed a tendency of BIS to stick dogmatically to their campaign theme and setting, but you know what, it's okay  if there's a random T-72 in there, because the community can make missions with it.

 

6. More varieties of tanks, i.e. infantry/light/medium to complement heavy tanks. It's fine to have very few infantry/light tanks, because these will be mostly used for coops as cannon fodder, or in TvTs - although I do agree that today this purpose is served by IFVs and APCs. That said, it will be good to have something that's not mounted with an autocannon :)

 

It would be really nice to have more medium tanks, though. Especially in terms of the A3 theme, it may make more sense to give the AAF some medium stuff from the cold war, since, well, they're a tiny island nation, I really wouldn't expect them to have a ton of Leopard 2 Revolutions lying about. Tanoan paramil would also likely have some old WWII era tanks lying about, probably light ones because of the terrain. I wouldn't expect CSAT or NATO to use heavy tanks much either, as it's logistically easier to transport and maintain medium tanks.

 

7. Consider whether the rearm/refuel/repair mechanic can be made more engaging (and reliable in a multiplayer environment), especially when it comes to repair trucks.

 

8. Teach AI tanks how to drive
 

9. Prevent AI APCs, IFVs, tanks from rolling straight into the enemy. Make them move more tactically and smartly. If IFVs are attached to an infantry squad, they should move with/behind the infantry, provide cover, etc. instead of running off on their own or running over their own infantry.

 

10. More tank and vehicle skins, based on real world camo, preferably one skin per environment (Altis/Malden/Tanoa).

 

11. Tanks/vehicles not blowing up unless ammo storage blows up?

 

12. Tanks vehicles not catching fire unless #11 or the fuel tank takes enough hits? Fire without explosion, mind you. Until it the ammo storage catches fire. Then boom.

 

I think that's about it.

 

EDIT:

 

13. Less CROWS commander turrets, or at least require the commander/machine gunner to expose themselves (especially relevant if older than future tanks are added). Makes for more interesting gameplay, since the crew has to expose themselves to small arms fire as well.

[.kju 3244]

What about a mix between 2d driver view and full 3d interior - like a simplified 3d model of the tank crew area?

Not sure if a few others have suggested something along these lines already. To as a player the functional parts

matter most - like additional windows to look outside (awareness), ability to see crew and their health, rough idea

of ammo left and bonus would be gun animations, crew animations switching positions/getIn/getOut, good soundscape,

and FX (fire, heat, explosion) - monitors are just NTH as many disable them for performance reasons anyway.

[R3vo 2654]

What about a mix between 2d driver view and full 3d interior - like a simplified 3d model of the tank crew area?

 

They either get it done right or not at all. Afterall we will be paying money for that DLC.

 

ability to see crew and their health

 

Not sure what to think about that. Is that really part of a tank? I mean, are tank crews connected to some sort of a health monitoring machine?

 

Getting information about health should be done via the radio protocol and it actually already is -> report in/report status.

[dragon01 902]

Well, if you're the commander and can look around the tank's interior, you can see if there's blood on your gunner's face or not. :) I'd say, that's what he meant. In designs like Armata, you could also see the driver. 

 

I think that tank interiors are a really good idea. They do add a lot of immersion, especially if they were combined with proper get in/get out animations. Turning in and out should be animated as well.

[andersson 285]

In OFP we could look at the other crew members and see if they were bloody or not. I did it after a hit as it was quicker than fiddling with the radio. I'm sure that is what kju ment.

[.kju 3244]

 

 

They either get it done right or not at all.

 

That would mean not at all. Simple as that.

 

 

 

are tank crews connected to some sort of a health monitoring machine

 

In real life you can see if someone is injured, bleeding, moaning, is shacking, has seizures, has blow out ears, etc.

Arma supports technology since OFP to visualize some of these.

[R3vo 2654]

That would mean not at all. Simple as that.

 

That what I fear =/ I really hope BIS realises how important that freaking Tank DLC is for many players.

 

In real life you can see if someone is injured, bleeding, moaning, is shacking, has seizures, has blow out ears, etc.

Arma supports technology since OFP to visualize some of these.

 

Ah okey, I thought you ment some sort of a HUD element which shows the injured body parts or so.

[en3x 209]

I think modeling interiors for new 2 tanks would be perfectly doable.And 3 existing kuma/slammer/t100

could be added eventually down the road.

[instagoat 133]

(...)

 

4. Reliable and transparent damage model.

I can't begin to state how frustrating it is as a mission maker to try and balance missions. How much damage will an RPG42-HE round do to a vehicle? How much will the AT round do to a Kamysh, or to a Kuma? How does the PCML compare to the RPG42-AT, RPG7, Titan, etc? There's no indication except tedious trial and error which gives different results with different weapons and vehicles at different angles. Is distance between target and launcher a factor? I don't freaking know.

 

TL;DR: Make it obvious somewhere what kind of round does what type of damage, and what part of a vehicle receives what damage, how much is enough to take out a hitpoint, how many rounds will probably lead to explosions or crew death. Don't make me dig through config files for this information.

 

EDIT: See Wargame: Red Dragon's system for example - Shells/Missiles get AP/HE values, tanks get directional armour values on top of hit points. KE/HEAT is also modeled. Most importantly, players know the values because it's obviously presented to them.

 

(...)

 

Even though it's really not that simple, I think a simplified system like that would be good. Just make it so that your armor surfaces on the vehicles are appropriate, and that you simulate SLAT (randomized chance of negating damage) and ERA (negate all damage on that armor tile once). It's really a shame that fast paced multiplayer games like Armored Warfare do a better job at armor simulation than Arma does.

 

But what happens behind the armor is also, if not more, important. We should be able to see optics/sensor damage and degradation, failing systems such as turret traverse and elevation gear, malfunctioning drivetrains, tracks, non-catastrophic fires...

The Damage model as it stands was solid for Armed Assault, but by Arma 2s time it was already so backwards that the only solid adaptations were massive addons made by the community (and even those suffer from the shortages of the base).

 

1: tanks do not explode all the time if hit. And even if, wether or not the crew survives is completely dependent on the design of the vehicle. A cookoff should not kill any Crew on the Kuma, since the ammo is stored seperately from the combat compartment. Instead, it blows up, the turret magically disappears, and everyone's dead.

 

2: Crews are squishy, and so are internal modules, such as hydraulic and electric systems. Backup gunsights, hand-cranks for the turret traverse, that stuff needs to be a thing. Also, especially in multiplayer games, proper recovery of knocked out armored vehicles could enhance gameplay. Put out the fire, hook it up to an ARV, and drag it back to a dedicated repair vehicle.

 

3: Damage is not an on-off thing. There is a documented case of a T-55 taking a turret hit from a kornet/metis ATGM in the rear quarter and staying functional, while in another case the same vehicle would've just gone up in a big ball of fire. Conditions inside the tank (ammo state, fuel state) need to be accounted for.

 

4: An armor viewer in the VR Garage so we can see where the armor is on a vehicle and against which weapons it protects. Again, see war thunder. The game may not that good, but there are some details in the simulation that are really really cool to have.

[foffy 58]

I'm not sure I am giving feedback, but instead putting the question out there: Would BI be making any meaningful content focused on whatever they make as this DLC?

 

One of the things I have found a bit upsetting about the way they've done premium playable content this time around is that the scenarios made in-house have been slim pickings. Looking at ArmA II's DLCs, each DLC was focused on an army, and each came with content - typically campaigns - that tried to emphasize the experience intended by it. PMC, for example, gave you content that made you feel like a contractor, and both the Campaign and Scenarios emphasized this. Each had a theme, a purpose, and had enough content to play with that you were able to get a good vibe for the scope of the content.

 

I have felt with ArmA III's DLCs that this experience has been lacking, and has almost been handwaved to the multiplayer to try and get to. Marksman only had two scenarios IIRC, and one of them had nothing to do with sniping, whereas Helicopters really only had flying time trials and multiplayer scenarios that were essentially the same thing but with a pick-up/deploy system for transport troops. Would it be too much to ask for something like a campaign or a series of missions to help give the themes of the content more weight and significance? Showcases help people learn of the mechanics, but learning the systems and refinements added may also happen with a campaign. After all, if you give people a jet mission, what exactly makes that more interesting than the one already in the game as I write this? What would a new tank scenario really add that players of ArmA III didn't get from the Beta release? Maybe a series of missions focusing on jet gameplay - a bombing mission, a mission dealing with other jets, even a mission where one gets bombed from the sky and has to escape/survival ala Cold War Crisis - would deeply enhance the experience intended with these DLCs. The same absolutely applies to tanks, as both jets and tanks have been lacking in the game overall. For most of what BI has put out, it's been about infantry and maybe 1% something else.

 

Premium content to play with as toys is fine. But I'd like to have premium content to offer an experience as well, if that's possible. The best offering of the DLCs so far to do this was that one mission from Marksman that actually forced you be a marksman. Because of its immersion, its emphasis on getting the systems and new gameplay features right or else you wouldn't be able to complete the mission successfully, the experience of sniping helped hook the systems and purposes of mechanics into me as a player in a deeper way than simply remembering button combinations to deploy my weapon or zoom my scope. I would like a more substantial taste of this moving with tanks and jets, for these have been sorely lacked in similar manners for almost the entirety of ArmA III's existence. Those are presently arenas where you learn mechanics in mutilplayer.

[rowdied 44]

Don't recall seeing this in the thread yet,

 

but add the ability to add armor plates to vehicles, or side skirts.

 

ie/ numerous WW2 pics with tanks adding pieces of track to front hull or turret to offset penetration of rounds or cause the chance the round will be deflected and not penetrate.

 

Or just the ability to ad storage containers to tanks, etc. extra wheels/tracks, drums, bags etc...

[Private Evans 498]

@ foffy

 

+1 I really would like to see mini campaigns included like they did with bootcamp :)

[R3vo 2654]

@ foffy

 

+1 I really would like to see mini campaigns included like they did with bootcamp :)

 

Having a small armoured campaign on Malden would be very neat ;)

[Private Evans 498]

Having a small armoured campaign on Malden would be very neat ;)

I would even love to go back to Altis :) since the terrain would be perfect :)

[Blafirelli 24]

Is it be possible to create a poll with multiple choices to see what people think should be a priority?

[Guest]

About design of new tanks, I'm expecting a lot of modularity / animated parts, in order to let mission makers adapt them to their needs. I'm manly thinking about additional armour (like the Kuma for AAF), removable LMG (like Slammer/Slammer up), or the ability to disable a specific type of ammo for the cannon. It would prevent vehicles from being over-powered in situations where the mission creator want it to be weak. Example : disabling extra armour and enabling LMG in a city-cleaning scenario (higher exposure to RPG, but higher power against infantry with LMG).

[Damian90 697]

 

1: tanks do not explode all the time if hit. And even if, wether or not the crew survives is completely dependent on the design of the vehicle. A cookoff should not kill any Crew on the Kuma, since the ammo is stored seperately from the combat compartment. Instead, it blows up, the turret magically disappears, and everyone's dead.

 

You do realize that MBT-52 Kuma is a renamed Leopard 2 which is one of the most dangerous tanks for it's crew? ;)

Hint, there is 27 rounds in unprotected, non isolated ammo rack in the hull next to the driver. ;)

 

http://i.imgur.com/4XflE0c.jpg

 

Only 15 rounds is stored in turret bustle isolated from crew.

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Leopard_2A4_Munitionsbunker_Turmheck.jpg

 

In game M2A1/M2A4 Slammer should be safer, because like in real world Merkava Mk4 it also have 10 rounds in isolated turret bustle, but the rest of ammo stored in the hull, is stored in lightly armored FRAC ammo containers.

 

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/30/1437947319-merkava-mk-iv-17-rounds-on-each-sides.jpg

http://www.yadlashiryon.com/VF/ib_items/4905/2.jpg

 

T-100 Varusk should behave same as MBT-52 Kuma/Leopard 2, some ammo is stored in rear turret bustle, some in crew compartment in hull.

 

However while non of the tanks in vanilla game have a complete main gun ammo storage isolated, the mechanic should be implemented because for example in various mods there are tanks that have entire main gun ammo storage isolated, like we in RHS have M1A1 and M1A2 tanks which have such complete main gun ammo isolation safety feature.

 

 

So ammo storage with blow off panels and isolation from crew compartment should behave like on these videos.

[KeyCat 131]

We need "Top Down" capable AT launcher and heli weapons to deal with these new threats!

 

Looking forward to this DLC :)

 

/KC
 

[SuicideKing 233]

Re: mini campaigns

 

I don't know how many people play Arma for single player, I know I haven't played much of East Wind nor have I played much of Apex Protocol. I've at most  played showcase missions. I know i'm not the only one I know who's done this.

 

So, while it would be wrong to suggest that my preferences matter more than people who do want a mini campaign or substantial single player content, I do worry that BIS will end up trying something fancy like Apex Protocol with a lot of bling and voice acting, etc. I feel this would lead to more money being put into that stuff as opposed to the actual game systems and vehicles.

 

So while I'm not opposed to a sting of missions without any over the top fanciness, I'd rather anything that takes considerable effort to produce be split off into it's own small single player DLC add on to the core content (i.e. a mission or campaign pack).

This way, the single player content can pay for itself, and the core content doesn't suffer. People who don't want the single player stuff don't need to get it, and the ones who do can pay something nominal over the cost of the base DLC (like $2) for the mission/campaign pack add on. People who decide to get the core DLC only, but later want to pick up the mission pack, can just pay the difference.

 

To reiterate, I'm only suggestion a paid mission pack if BIS wants to make it fancy. If it's just a bunch of missions that were put together over a month then it's mostly the work of mission makers, and that shouldn't cut into what the rest of the team is doing anyway - financially or otherwise.

[silentghoust 132]

In regard to single player tank missions. The Bear mission from Arma 2 is by far the funnest. What made it so great was a couple things.

• Commanding a tank platoon.
• AI were efficient at formation changes
• manually operated KORD, some times you have to put your inner Fury on to enjoy things.
• Combined arms approach, with none-command AI moving in with you.

Honestly it just felt good, the AI were responsive, you could for example do a line formation and slow roll to the town, as you let the infantry clear out the town, you could order a file and your tanks would fall in extremely efficient. It made everything smooth, and the little pausing time I did waiting for proper formations was no more then waiting for a player platoon.

[instagoat 133]

You do realize that MBT-52 Kuma is a renamed Leopard 2 which is one of the most dangerous tanks for it's crew? ;)

Hint, there is 27 rounds in unprotected, non isolated ammo rack in the hull next to the driver. ;)

 

http://i.imgur.com/4XflE0c.jpg

 

Only 15 rounds is stored in turret bustle isolated from crew.

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Leopard_2A4_Munitionsbunker_Turmheck.jpg

 

In game M2A1/M2A4 Slammer should be safer, because like in real world Merkava Mk4 it also have 10 rounds in isolated turret bustle, but the rest of ammo stored in the hull, is stored in lightly armored FRAC ammo containers.

 

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/30/1437947319-merkava-mk-iv-17-rounds-on-each-sides.jpg

http://www.yadlashiryon.com/VF/ib_items/4905/2.jpg

 

T-100 Varusk should behave same as MBT-52 Kuma/Leopard 2, some ammo is stored in rear turret bustle, some in crew compartment in hull.

 

However while non of the tanks in vanilla game have a complete main gun ammo storage isolated, the mechanic should be implemented because for example in various mods there are tanks that have entire main gun ammo storage isolated, like we in RHS have M1A1 and M1A2 tanks which have such complete main gun ammo isolation safety feature.

 

 

So ammo storage with blow off panels and isolation from crew compartment should behave like on these videos.

 

Well, properly simulated it would still allow the player to discard the stowage in the hull for only the ready racks in the turret and the bustle. If you want/need to take a full rack, you can do it. Right now it doesn't matter because all Vehicles explode anyway, but if stowage and internal modules are implemented, option to discard ammo from certain places in the tank should be a feature.

[Radnik 18]

@BIS

 

Please do not make this DLC into "X number of new tanks and camos".

 

Even if I don't get a single new model, but XX number of tweaks and features would be a like a new game.

 

my 2 cents

[SuicideKing 233]

 

Even if I don't get a single new model

You do realise that won't sell much, right? :)

 

It's also counter to their entire DLC model, since tweaks and features are considered platform upgrades, and free for everyone. It'll also be ambiguous for MP - do people without the DLC not get the tweaks? Do they always see ads? etc

 

I think I get what you meant to say, but asking for a tweaks/features-only DLC is not perhaps the best idea (because you're essentially suggesting a paid patch).

[Guest]

You do realise that won't sell much, right? :)

 

It's also counter to their entire DLC model, since tweaks and features are considered platform upgrades, and free for everyone. It'll also be ambiguous for MP - do people without the DLC not get the tweaks? Do they always see ads? etc

 

I think I get what you meant to say, but asking for a tweaks/features-only DLC is not perhaps the best idea (because you're essentially suggesting a paid patch).

There will probably be a few models, as much as the Helicopter DLC. Something like one for Bluefor, one for Opfor, and maybe variants or upgraded versions of the existing ones.

[tupolov 520]

 

5. Simulation for amphibious tracked vehicles.

 

6. Better physx handling for tracked vehicles.

 

 

THIS