Tanks - Fire-control system

[dragon01 902]

It's not unrealistic. Remember, it was multiplayer. It was incompetent on the BMP-2's crew part, but incompetence isn't exactly unknown in armed forces. Of course, in an actual war, people who make such mistakes tend have things like that happen to them, and they're out for much longer than a match. :) They left their vehicle unprotected and let someone sneak up on them. The results were perfectly realistic.

[instagoat 133]

Holy dingle. This looks awesome

 

28 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

*snip*

 

Of course, you're not going to be doing that in open field, but if you try engaging a tank in open field on foot, you deserve everything you get. Soldiers have a huge advantage against tanks in difficult terrain such as forests, mountains or urban terrain. Deserts, salt lakes or rolling Chernarussian plains? Better get a helo or your own tank.

My experiences with AI were different. Last time I had to fight tanks I nearly gave up in frustration. No matter where I went, if I did anything but crawl, they spotted me. The mission was in broad daylight, but the commander wasn't scanning anything (his MG was always pointed forward).

 

If you've got a lousy (human) tank commander, of course it's easy. But then, it depends entirely on the competence of the crew.

 

17 minutes ago, Alwarren said:

 

A few weeks ago I was the last one of my squad after we got decimated by a BMP-2. The second squad was still alive, so I decided to sneak up on the BMP-2 and plant a charge on it. This was with ACE; so I could attach the charge to the BMP-2's hull. It didn't see me. After a while it drove off, only to die by my satchel shortly afterwards.

 

Glorious moment :)

 

The AI is extremely good at spotting things inside their arc of vision, and blind outside it. They have to get shot at to spot something outside of their arc of vision. They also don't scan. There's the "scan horizon" command, but that's not the same. For example, in Wargame:Air Land Battle you can see your little tanks scanning their assigned arcs of vision, turrets rotating back and forth. This addon with the lasers is great for players, but the vision and lack of scanning problem for the AI isn't really alleviated by these advanced gun laying systems.

 

If the AI spots you, it is super deadly, and if it doesn't spot you, its cannonfodder.

[Alwarren 2767]

5 minutes ago, eriktrak said:

Now that is unrealistic. Stationary vehicles without some form of guarding and somebody can sneak up and attach the satchel without undetected highly unbelievable in real life.
However agree that is a nice moment archive. :) 

 

It wasn't stationary. It had just mowed down my entire squad. It had dismounts running around, I was lucky that they were occupied. I used a bush to approach, planted the charge and waited there until the BMP-2 advanced. When it was well out of blast radius, I blew the charge.

 

and yeah, it's one of those moments :)

[Strike_NOR 898]

Guys. It's an interesting debate, but this thread is for Fire Control System discussion, not general armored warfare tactics between tanks and infantry.

 

I'm sure we get a lot of cool new features with tanks DLC. One of which, I hope, is a different way of simulating tank damage and, armor types and armor penetrating effects.

[Alwarren 2767]

1 minute ago, instagoat said:

If the AI spots you, it is super deadly, and if it doesn't spot you, its cannonfodder.

 

Pretty much. I hope improvements on the tank AI are on the menu for the Tanks DLC as well. For example (general issue), moving convoys should always cover fire arcs. Lead tank should cover front, two in the middle left and right, and the rear tank should cover the rear. I believe that you can set these fire archs in VBS2's editor. Something of that nature would be very welcome.

[domokun 515]

39 minutes ago, eriktrak said:

I have no idea how much chance you have in real life carrying an AT launcher against a tank. Surely must have some otherwise no such weapon type would exists.

 

Just for confirmation I don't want to make the tanks as an expensive / loud shooting target just  right now cannot see how to fight against them.

IRL the chances of an infantryman neutralising an MBT with an AT weapon are fairly slim. However if the MBT employs poor tactics (stationary, exposed and/or unsupported) then it is quite feasible for an AT team (usually 2-3 men) to destroy or at least immobilise an MBT. If you're genuinely interested the web now has plenty of footage from recent conflicts https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/

[.kju 3245]

@Varanon @Alwarren

no need to treat everyone as clueless or being one-sided - especially if you easily fall into that category yourself with your statements

 

From what i can tell eriktrak is from the EUTW community - which arguable is probably having the highest level of PvP play (among a few other communities/groups) these days.

 

It is a very valid question indeed how this change will implicate PvP play. The loss of radar likely has the most influence due to the loss of awareness.

However the aiming mechanic seems to be quite simplified and made essentially skill less and very little experience based.

 

Now BI also added sqf commands in A2 days to allow mission makers to balance the desired gameplay.

 

And no TI in Arma is not a realistic representation, nor is the level of awareness inside tanks/vehicles, nor is the confusion level in the battlefield, the perfect reliability and many other factors.

So if you focus your argument on an isolated element, you are leaving out the bigger picture - Arma is a simulation of Warfare and as such just a compromise to what is possible and feasible with a game.

[.kju 3245]

@domokun

Maybe watch yourself more videos on the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, or even Jemen/southern border region of Saudi Arabia before making statements on AT vs tank/vehicle threat situation. :)

The reality is that tanks/vehicles are very vulnerable to the various infantry based AT systems and high number of tanks/vehicles get destroyed or disabled.

[domokun 515]

1 minute ago, .kju said:

@domokun

Maybe watch yourself more videos on the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, or even Jemen/southern border region of Saudi Arabia before making statements on AT vs tank/vehicle threat situation. :)

The reality is that tanks/vehicles are very vulnerable to the various infantry based AT systems and high number of tanks/vehicles get destroyed or disabled.

Elementary my dear Watson. Tanks are very vulnerable but only under the right conditions (I tried to give a few examples). The recent glut of TOWs in the Middle East has offered armchair generals a rare glimpse into the efficiency of TOW vs T-64, T-72, Leopard, etc.

[Alwarren 2767]

8 minutes ago, .kju said:

@Varanon @Alwarren

no need to treat everyone as clueless or being one-sided - especially if you easily fall into that category yourself with your statements

 

Well done, kju,. I'll refrain from stooping to that level, thank you.

[DancZer 65]

Tanks fire control?!

Tanks fire control.

Tanks?!

Tanks!

Thanks!

[eriktrak 76]

AT missiles having selectable top-attack profile, locking on partially covered target (right now if the geometric center of the vehicle is covered no chance to acquire a lock), simulating armor degradation (two hits on the same spot render the vehicle unusable) just a few examples how to balance.

 

I am absolutely sure we gonna see improvements on the anti-tank side as well.

 

 

 

[dragon01 902]

Armor degradation, except for ERA (not present on vanilla vehicles and RHS already models it with its own system), would be somewhat meaningless on ArmA timescales. Hitting the same spot twice in a row is unlikely (and besides, the tanks go down from a single good hit more often than not). Now, locking on a partially covered target is something I'd love. In fact, heat seekers should be able to lock onto any heat source that is hot enough. But that's a point to be made in sensors overhaul thread. Top attack is being currently screamed about in the General thread, thanks to a recent engine change that enabled launcher firemodes. :)

[drebin052 324]

9 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Armor degradation, except for ERA (not present on vanilla vehicles [...]

 

Going a bit OT here but that's not quite true. The M2A4 does have additional ERA panels installed on the front of the chassis, the bolt-on armour skirts, and on the turret itself.

[mjolnir66 48]

15 hours ago, .kju said:

@Varanon @Alwarren

no need to treat everyone as clueless or being one-sided - especially if you easily fall into that category yourself with your statements

 

From what i can tell eriktrak is from the EUTW community - which arguable is probably having the highest level of PvP play (among a few other communities/groups) these days.

 

It is a very valid question indeed how this change will implicate PvP play. The loss of radar likely has the most influence due to the loss of awareness.

However the aiming mechanic seems to be quite simplified and made essentially skill less and very little experience based.

 

Now BI also added sqf commands in A2 days to allow mission makers to balance the desired gameplay.

 

And no TI in Arma is not a realistic representation, nor is the level of awareness inside tanks/vehicles, nor is the confusion level in the battlefield, the perfect reliability and many other factors.

So if you focus your argument on an isolated element, you are leaving out the bigger picture - Arma is a simulation of Warfare and as such just a compromise to what is possible and feasible with a game.

 

Oh no! Tanks are getting equipment they have in reality! Whatever shall we do? 

 

TI in Arma is unrealistically terrible, but other than that, the vehicles (as long as you use 1st person only) represent the confusion and level of awareness of being inside an AFV surprisingly well. In that you can't see anything, and realistically have to stick your head out to get real bearings. 

 

Question, how do you want to make a laser aiming system skill based exactly?

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

19 hours ago, .kju said:

@Varanon @Alwarren

no need to treat everyone as clueless or being one-sided - especially if you easily fall into that category yourself with your statements

 

From what i can tell eriktrak is from the EUTW community - which arguable is probably having the highest level of PvP play (among a few other communities/groups) these days.

 

It is a very valid question indeed how this change will implicate PvP play. The loss of radar likely has the most influence due to the loss of awareness.

However the aiming mechanic seems to be quite simplified and made essentially skill less and very little experience based.

 

Now BI also added sqf commands in A2 days to allow mission makers to balance the desired gameplay.

 

And no TI in Arma is not a realistic representation, nor is the level of awareness inside tanks/vehicles, nor is the confusion level in the battlefield, the perfect reliability and many other factors.

So if you focus your argument on an isolated element, you are leaving out the bigger picture - Arma is a simulation of Warfare and as such just a compromise to what is possible and feasible with a game.

 

As someone who played thousands of hours of Warfare I can only say that the removal of the radar/sensors that instantly show ground vehicles is a godsend.  People will no longer simply be able to barrel down mountains/hills at 90kph while spamming tab-lock at all the red squares that magically appear and aiming - while still slightly simplified will not be as simple and easy as it currently is where you simply tab-lock point and shoot with an almost guaranteed hit. 

This will make tank game play slightly more tactical but chances are people are not going to like it because it requires more thinking/planning on their behalf.

[R3vo 2654]

I personally would like to see a longer delay between range measurements, maybe 2.5 secs and a config entry to define the delay per vehicle.

One second is basically no delay at all. Also, the readiness of the laser range finder should be indicated by a "peep" sound of some sort.

 

4 hours ago, mjolnir66 said:

Question, how do you want to make a laser aiming system skill based exactly?

 

I believe by increasing the time between measurements, the player has to more carefully decide when to lase and shoot, e.g, when the vehicle moves predictable.

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

I like the idea of a sound when the laser is ready. Good suggestion.

[dragon01 902]

Also, I think that it'd be good to introduce a short delay to account for the tank having to physically align the gun and turret for the new range data (having this actually reflected in the actual turret movement would be best). Considering the alignment time would depend on speed and distance difference between the first and second target, some skill would be needed to fire as fast as possible, but not so fast that the turret is still out of alignment.

[Alwarren 2767]

I have played around with the new FCS a bit and one thing I found confusing is that holding the "Lase Target" will not update either the speed nor the range display. In other words, the laser more or less is locked to the "FIRST" setting as on the Challenger 2 FCS (as I understand it).

Based on these observations, I'd like to propose a few changes:

1. Lasing a target on most FCS takes a bit of time, so a 1 second delay between lasing and lead calculation would be realistic.
2. Allow a toggle between FIRST and LAST laser input. FIRST would be like it is now (target lead and range are taken from the moment the button is pressed) while LAST would continue to lase and range until the button is released.
3. Allow a button to be used to enter BSGT (Battle Sight) mode, fixing the range to 1200 meters and dumping all lead calculated by the FCS
4. Allow a button to dump lead without needing to lase again. 

The last two buttons could even be left unmapped in the default mapping since they are mostly for "advanced" players. However, the above would make the whole of the FCS even more realistic.

 

[Alwarren 2767]

7 hours ago, R3vo said:

One second is basically no delay at all. Also, the readiness of the laser range finder should be indicated by a "peep" sound of some sort.

 

The Leopard 2 FCS has approximately one second delay until the range and lead are fixed. It definitely should be a config entry.

Readiness of the laser is already displayed by the square on the range. Most tank FCS have such a control light or HUD element, no idea if they also have a sound, but I don't usually think they do.

[R3vo 2654]

17 minutes ago, Alwarren said:

 

The Leopard 2 FCS has approximately one second delay until the range and lead are fixed. It definitely should be a config entry.

Readiness of the laser is already displayed by the square on the range. Most tank FCS have such a control light or HUD element, no idea if they also have a sound, but I don't usually think they do.

 

Thanks for the info.

[x3kj 1247]

9 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

This will make tank game play slightly more tactical

It will make it harder to hit vehicles. Which is good. It makes them unrealistically difficult to hit however, as vehicles are unrealistically mobile.

Tanks and wheeled vehicles are generally not slowed down by terrain at all, unless its uphill, or the terrain is littered with the infuriating alien objects (disguising as stacked stonewalls or traffic barriers) made of indestructable material. Driving 70kph over an agricultural field on any map (custom and vanilla) is order of the day in arma. In reality vehicles would be much much slower, especially in wet conditions and bounce way more at high speeds when driving offiroad.

 

Dslyexci has a couple of vids where this is quite apparent. This snippet is an example https://youtu.be/MTnMh7xENjU?t=26m24s(other engangements in this video where very similar - no engage possible until the vehicle was crashed into something or in spitting distance) or here, where t-72 and bmp's are dancing and prancing down the hill like on ice skates.

 

Quote

58 minutes ago, Alwarren said:

1. Allow a button to be used to enter BSGT (Battle Sight) mode, fixing the range to 1200 meters and dumping all lead calculated by the FCS
2. Allow a button to dump lead without needing to lase again. 

Yes a switch between a "AUTO" - mode (laser based distance), and "MANUAL" - (manual zeroing,no lead calculation) would be nice. It could remember the setting you used in manual, so if you set it to 500, then use automatic lasing, then go back to manual, it would keep the 500, therefore negating the need to use some predefined battlesight mode. Though it would also be usefull to be able to lase a distance and based upon that distance increase/decrease the zeroed range. Having both functionalities would be nice, but i guess a bit hard to understand for newer people.

[.kju 3245]

 

On 3/7/2017 at 3:15 PM, eriktrak said:

> I have no idea how much chance you have in real life carrying an AT launcher against a tank. Surely must have some otherwise no such weapon type would exists.

> Just for confirmation I don't want to make the tanks as an expensive / loud shooting target just  right now cannot see how to fight against them.

 

@domokun

As you were quoting him with this context - the practical reality shows that the "right conditions" are very often the case (unless you have such extremely one sided encounters like the US invading Iraq).

Tanks won't charge or go on their own. If they try, it often results in catastrophic losses. It is also not only about the early generation TOWs the Saudis are supplying the rebels, yet the various Russian type

AT systems available to basically all faction are very lethal and destructive (as are the Milans). Even RPGs and other such short range AT systems have proven (once again) very deadly in many conditions.

 

Basically most probably prefer not to operate a tank in those battlefields if they had the choice.

 

The real question in actual real conditions is of course availability of such systems in the first place and the specific situation, as well as mostly stationary use (or early in urban environments) of tanks.

If you are on your own, you are basically at the mercy of the opponent not having AT systems available in that situation.

 

The actual relevance is that in reality as tank you are very exposed due to many aspects and in contrast it is extremely hard to spot infantry at all. Especially any infantry based AT threat.

While in Arma due to its limitations, it is very easy to spot infantry and very hard for infantry to move without being spotted or effective taking cover.

 

 

@mjolnir66

did you see anyone complain about the addition? i only saw some people making arguments to make the system a little more advanced and realistic to use.

in addition to give mission designers via scripting the ability to influence the system (or disable altogether). no competitive PvP play would want to use that new FCS system as its boring.

"easy to learn, hard to master" - the design philosophy from Blizzard. this is what you want to have for good gameplay. reality by itself is irrelevant to good gameplay - especially as mentioned

a single piece of "reality" doesnt reflect the actual reality.

 

it is incredibly easy in Arma as one man tank crew, with some communication with your team, if they are capable, to have extremely good battlefield awareness, mobility and engagement abilities.

 

 

@Imperator[TFD]

have you seen anyone to complain about the removal of the radar/sensors? i haven't.

 

side story: I made the first mod to disable locking and remove the radar capabilities in OFP; WGL was the first major PvP gameplay mod to do so.

there is also this two part deep analysis on this topic by me:

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki?title=A3_Targeting_config_reference&oldid=71996

https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/194434-arma-3-targeting-review-revision-2/

 

anyway short story:

1. there should be a SQF cmd to disable the FCS system

2. as its undesirable in competitive PvP play

3. there is no way to reasonably "balance" it

4. no - mods are no option until Arma offers full and simple mod sync to mission - A3 is still not there yet by a good margin

 

[darkChozo 133]

Re: switching to manual ranging, it seems to make the most sense to have the range setting buttons as a de facto manual mode switch. For example, if you're FCS-ranged to 1258m, and hit Page Down, it enables manual mode and dials you down to the appropriate ranging increment, 1200m.

 

Doesn't really matter that much though, the FCS is pretty much better than manual ranging in every situation aside from indirect fire.