Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements

[Strike_NOR 898]

On 3/24/2018 at 12:28 AM, Yoshi_E said:

Though it seems that some ERA (e.g. Rhino UP) wont activate from it.

Cant give any feedback about the damage, as both the weapon and the vehicle armor is still WIP.

 

Currently, AFAIK all of the mentioned HEAT warheads from yesterdays update are, in fact, Tandem HEAT*. This means that ERA is generally useless or less effective against it. ERA should activate (if by activate you mean explode) from it when hit, but it may not stop the actual jet from penetrating.

 

When the RPG-7 and other single-stage HEAT weapons make it into the game, they should be defeated by ERA.

 

The PCML is single-stage HEAT, so maybe you will see different results when attacking with that?

 

 

EDIT:

 

@oukej

I am seeing that the Titan AT still struggles a little bit with overshooting the targets. Even at long ranges (where the missile has reached max flight height) the missile tends to land on the far side of the vehicle, meaning the AP projectile usually fires out of the side of the target.

 

 

Of all tests I did with Titan AT on moving Varsuk, the missile hits the far side of the turret (leaing to minimal damage - but in 2/3 attempts disabling the far side tracks), while it should be hitting on the top or the side facing the launch direction.

 

EDIT_2*

Turns out, tank cannon HEAT are usually single warhead, no precursor. The Scalpel and RPG-42 are confirmed tandem HEAT, though.

[teabagginpeople 398]

On 24/03/2018 at 7:34 AM, Strike_NOR said:

 

@oukej

I am seeing that the Titan AT still struggles a little bit with overshooting the targets. Even at long ranges (where the missile has reached max flight height) the missile tends to land on the far side of the vehicle, meaning the AP projectile usually fires out of the side of the target.

 

 

 

Of all tests I did with Titan AT on moving Varsuk, the missile hits the far side of the turret (leaing to minimal damage - but in 2/3 attempts disabling the far side tracks), while it should be hitting on the top or the side facing the launch direction.

Hmmmm I was seeing the Rhino atgm top down , missing off shot when hitting a locked UAV laser, targeting a static varusk.  Had 2 out of three land beside the tank. 

 

From a full Rhino Atgm release overall damage hull yellow.

 

I placed two vans in the test. Both first time direct hits.

 

Admittedly needs more testing my side for solid repro. 

[Hvymtal 1251]

Referred to this thread by Yoshi-E. After concerns were brought up in the Damage improvements thread: 

I do understand that HEAT submunitions are still quite WIP, and I hope that my feedback helps

 

Quote

I just tested against some other vehicles, it appears that the Titan is underperforming strongly, and the Rhino may be over-protected.

Some roughly empirical testing. Keep in mind that the Panther is based off of a tank and has ridiculously high survivability for its class

 

One hit against frontal armor. 1.000 is full health, lower numbers means more damage. Rounded to .001

MAAWS Mk4 (Both versions perform identically, I tested Mod 1)

Rhino: 0.695

Panther: 0.709

Marshall: 0.541

 

RPG-42 Alamut

Rhino: 0.523

Panther: 0.888 (for some reason the RPG-42's damage against the Panther is consistently garbage. Perhaps this is a bug, perhaps this is a specific balance trait)

Marshall: 0.430

 

RPG-7

Rhino: 0.803

Panther: 0.811

Marshall: 0.703

 

PCML Direct

Rhino: 0.691

Panther: 0.702

Marshall: 0.534

 

PCML Top Down

Rhino: 0.573

Panther: 0.577

Marshall: Instant Kill

 

Titan Direct

Rhino: 0.621, plus notable wheel damage

Panther: 0.689

Marshall: 0.534

 

Titan Top Down

Rhino: 0.837

Panther: 0.839

Marshall: 0.775

 

9M135 Vorona

Rhino: 0.382

Panther: 0.410

Marshall: 0.071

Note: I did have varying damage tallies with the Vorona. When I went to test it for consistency, it suddenly became super consistent with the aforementioned values. Because of course it did

I can't dig into the config files because I'm useless at that stuff, but the Titan seems to be underperforming compared to the other guided launchers. While the damage was not entirely consistent, the Top down was even in some cases weaker then the RPG-7. I do feel that given the high mass of the Titan and its Missiles, it should have damage in between the PCML and the Vorona; the PCML being the lighter, easier to use, but less capable system, the Vorona being the high-skill high-reward system, and the Titan being somewhere in between

[Strike_NOR 898]

@Hvymtal

 

You have probably read my posts in the Damage improvements thread, so I'll do the TL;DR variant.

 

AFAIK, the Titan AT is a small AT missile. The name Titan is actually the most misleading thing about the whole weapon, as it is probably the smallest AT missile there is (Missile - meaning guidance unit, rocket motor, sensor, control surface actuators and warhead).

 

The strengths of the Titan AT are:

• Small size/compact - meaning you can carry more ammunition with you.
• High tech - meaning direct attack OR Top attack, for various targets in Fire and Forget mode. (Gunner can relocate immediately after firing).
• Accurate and reliable.

As a natural balance, its weaknesses are:

• Small warhead - meaning little HE and Frag effect, and less penetration power (which is why you MUST use top attack against tanks).
• Expensive (Not that it matters in ArmA).
• Can be spoofed by countermeasures.

 

If we say the Titan AT missile weighs 4 kg then compare it to an RPG rocket at 4kg, the RPG would have better penetration because you don't need to waste weight on guidance, steering, seekers or other gadgets. You just need a stabilizing fins, a sustainer motor and the warhead itself. This means, the majority of the rocket's weight is warhead, while the majority of the Titans weight is electronic devices.

 

At the end of the day though, the RPG needs to be fired within 100m to achieve reliable hits, and can't reach the thin armor on top unless you are on a building roof. The Titan AT does away with these issues and can guide for several KM and always hit the top, while you reload or move into cover.

 

 

Also, your tests with the various missiles/rockets - you should know that only the Titan, PCML and RPG-42 have the new HEAT/projectile mechanic. The others still use "indirectHit" calculation (splash damage) to kill things.

[Hvymtal 1251]

I copy/pasted my post here before I saw your post. You do bring up some very good points

 

I understand the Mini-Spike/Titan is supposed to be a super light, high capability but low punch system. Yet at the same time, the missiles currently weigh as much as the Vorona's, (thought to be fair the launcher is quite a bit lighter). From a gameplay balance perspective, there is literally zero reason to choose the Titan over the PCML or Vorona, when the PCML does the same job but with more damage and less weight, and the Vorona has the same weight but more damage. Of course, HEAT submunitions are not fully implemented, but if this is the balance they are going for, it basically makes the Titan irrelevant. They managed to avoid doing that with the Angara/Varsuk by giving the Angara some very notable weaknesses not shared by the Varsuk, but I'm concerned about the Titan.

 

If the real world analogue is supposed to be a super light but relatively low-punch system, then I question why both the ammunition and the launcher weigh more than the PCML, which seems to be moving more to the less flexible but higher punch self-guided role? I also question why the Titan would still be the missile specialist weapon. I'm not saying it shouldn't be brought closer to it's real life counterpart, but to do so creates a lot of unnecessary role overlap, at which point the PCML and Vorona become the preferred AT weapons and the Titan just becomes a heavier, low velocity, but more precise MAAWS. Don't get me wrong, I'm personally a big fan of the Eryx and Mini spike, they are fantastic weapon systems for their intended purpose, but from a gameplay balance perspective with the current weapon systems and all factors taken into account, moving the Titan that direction without altering the "physical" characteristics seems strange. In fact the empty MBT law system (AKA PCML) is heavier, and is closer in empty weight to the AT-13 Saxhorn-2/9K115 Metis-M the Vorona seems to be based on

 

The current build and build balance is just a little confusing to me. Fortunately, we're still only on the first release candidate and do have half a month left still not including hotfixes and balance patches, so we can afford more time in the oven. This is the perfect time and place to do this whole AT rebalance thing. Having taken your points into consideration, here are my personal recommendations

-PCML gets a modest but notable mass increase. This will place it roughly on par with the Vorona as an AT-only system that is easier to use but has worse damage characteristics. Perhaps add a dual-purpose ammunition type with a more forgiving sane flight profile and a nice big blast radius. Also, for the love of god get rid of that RCO reticle :P

 

-Titan gets a modest launcher mass decrease and a significant ammunition weight decrease if the low damage numbers are here to stay. At the same time, I feel like the damage should get a slight buff to stay equal to or above the MAAWS in terms of damage capability, while at the same time still being heavier than the unguided systems. Also, the crew-served versions of the Titan probably should be/remain the single most powerful non-vehicle AT System, given the disadvantages of using it in this configuration. 

 

-Vorona feels good at the moment, but being the high-skill high-reward system its damage should still be a nice chunk higher than the PCML if it does not stay this way when HEAT submunitions are added. If its damage is not consistently greater than the PCML, then why bother over the PCML? Suddenly what was the least capable guided launcher became the most powerful AT weapon system in arma . 

 

I'm liking where the other launchers are at the moment, though this shift does leave NATO without a big-punch weapon system unless you count the crew-served Titan. PCML is potent, but it's not a tank-killer, and the Titan is being altered into a new role. 

[SuicideKing 233]

3 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

If we say the Titan AT missile weighs 4 kg then compare it to an RPG rocket at 4kg,

The RPG-42 has a weight of 100 for the tube + 60 for the missile, while the Titan AT is 120 for the launcher and 100 for the missile. So it seems to me that in Arma the Titan has essentially been a "future Javelin" up until now, and the main heavy AT weapon of the main faction.Of course it remains to be seen what the final damage values are for the HEAT projectile, but I would argue that the extra weight suggests would comprise the electronics and other extra stuff required.

 

Alternatively, they would need to make it lighter, if the real world thing is the standard we're seeking to achieve.

 

13 minutes ago, Hvymtal said:

though this shift does leave NATO without a big-punch weapon system unless you count the crew-served Titan. PCML is potent, but it's not a tank-killer, and the Titan is being altered into a new role. 

You posted as I was typing, but this is exactly the issue - NATO/AAF are left without a heavy anti tank team if this Titan debuff ends up being permanent. I'm less concerned about the MP balance component, more about the lore/faction balance when it comes to scenario design.

 

[Hvymtal 1251]

Like I said in my post, if the Titan remains a heavy-weight system but also gets this damage nerf, then it has neither the light-ish weight of the lighter, also self-guided PCML, or the punch of the manually guided Vorona. That's the thing about game balance, it doesn't happen in isolation, and now we're talking about Future ERYX instead of future Javelin, weight should be adjusted accordingly. The complete mini-spike/titan system is only 12 kilograms, which is lighter than both the MBT LAW/PCML and the AT-13/Vorona

 

Edit: Correction, the Titan launcher is a lighter system, but the missiles are still really heavy, excessively so for its punch. 3 AT in a carryall compared to 4 PCML and 3 Vorona

Edit 2: The MAAWS' arsenal bars are copy-pasted from the PCML. Sure, it's a placeholder, but I really doubt it does that much damage XD

[Strike_NOR 898]

I have completely overlooked the weight ingame, nice that you picked this up.

 

AFAIK the Mini-Spike launcher/control unit weighs 4 kg and so does the missile tubes. This means 8 kg for the loaded system. So a mini-spike team would be:

 

1 gunner with launch unit and 3 missiles.

1 assistant with 4 missiles.

 

That's 7 missiles for an AT team, and 11 if you add an extra assistant.

 

The Metis-M is a lot heavier. And I believe the team consists of:

 

1 Gunner who carries the launch control unit and 1 missile.

 

2 assistants that carry two missiles each for a total of 4.

 

This means that it effectively has half the ammo of the Mini-Spike.

 

The PCML has one major advantage in game that it lacks in real life, which is that it can be reloaded. I believe the NLAW is a one-shot disposable weapon, like the AT-4 and M72. It can be used at closer ranges with high accuracy because it can perform top attack without arching like javelins and titans. The NLAW is designed to kill MBT's just cheaper than the javelin. If devs were to remove the ability to reload the PCML, then the damage could be buffed. Dunno about real life, but seems like carrying two of those can be quite cumbersome.

 

Also, as a side note. Reloading AT launchers in game is just waaaaaay to fast. Most launchers reload in like 4 seconds. I'd like to see someone load an RPG-7 that fast IRL.

 

 

[Hvymtal 1251]

Everything reloads too fast in Arma compared to real life

 

Arma process for reloading a rifle

-Perform any pre-reload action that may be necessary (usually locking bolt to rear on HK Rollers, old open-bolt SMGs, etc)

-Depress catch and pull magazine out of weapon.

-Place magazine into dump pouch for later reuse

-Magically open ammo pouch flap which will always have a fresh mag in it and pull out mag

-Place mag in magazine well until the catch engages, then perform any other necessary actions (charging handle, bolt release etc)

-The weapon is now reloaded and ready to fire. Total time: about 2 seconds

 

Real life process reloading an M4 "A0" (From my former US Army medic brother in law)

-Depress catch and pull magazine out of weapon

-Attempt to place it in dump pouch and miss. Frantically scramble for it on the ground because you know the 1st Sergeant is going to be PISSED if you come back with fewer magazines than you departed

-Fumble with each of your 4 ammo pouches, struggling to get it open only to find it empty; only the last pouch you check has a mag with any ammo in it

-Place mag in magazine well until the catch engages. Usually requires a firm slap to the buttplate to ensure it is actually seated. Depress bolt release (or, under high stress, slap it)

-Aim at target, pull trigger. Weapon does not fire. Depress the forward assist. Does not rectify malfunction, because the forward assist never rectifies malfunctions no matter what the manual says

-Perform SPORTS. Discover that your shitty GI mags with their shitty followers didn't feed the ammo properly. Cycle charging handle until there is actually a round in the chamber, then depress the forward assist to ensure it is seated

-The weapon is now reloaded and ready to fire. Total time: about 25 seconds

 

That is an exaggeration with a malf and a bunch of empty mag pouches, but everything up to that is pretty accurate and it would take a fair bit longer to actually reload. Even the slower reloads in some mods are still unrealistically fact since they assume you will land it in the dump pouch every time (for modern NATO at least), and that the first pouch you go for will always have a mag and open easily every time. Even just from personal airsoft and Nerf experience: NEVER the case

 

Then again, hideously long reloads don't make for engaging gameplay, nor is relying on another individual to reload your weapon for you, so it's an acceptable departure from reality in this case. If you did your job properly, you normally aren't going to re-engage right away anyways, or even need to re-engage at all

[dragon01 902]

There should be some considerations for whether you're reloading an empty or a full mag. In combat, for empty mags or cases where quick reload is essential, you're going to skip the dump pouch, saving a few precious seconds. You may not even need to pull out the mag (though I don't know if they drop out easily on the real M4), in case of the AK series you can just "knock out" the old mag and insert a new one in a single motion. Not exactly what they teach you in boot, but in combat procedures tend to get... adjusted for reality. :) Reliability is another problem altogether, of course, and sadly not simulated in ArmA.

 

On the other side, MG reloading when the mag is empty is a bit longer than it should be, as your character has to take out a nonexistent belt before loading up a new one. It's more of a problem with MGs, actually, since they need to be able to do sustained fire. Then again, we don't have to change barrels, so it's a compromise, I suppose.

[darkChozo 133]

Just for the sake of discussion, here's some data I pulled from the config on dev build. This is, I believe, most of the stuff that's used to calculate penetration/damage for the various HEAT projectiles. There's also a lot of submunitions defined in CfgAmmo but not used, presumably because this is all WIP, so I included a few just for fun.

 

 

For reference, hit/indirect hit are the values used as a baseline for damage calculation (indirect hit is lower because it is usually going to hit more hitzones). Penetration for kinetic projectiles is based on caliber and speed. A 50cal bullet has caliber 4.2, hit 22, and init speed of about 580. A 120mm APFSDS shell has caliber 35.3, hit 500, and an init speed of about 1670.

 

So, what I take from this is that there are a lot of copied parameters among the new submunitions, with caliber being the only thing that's really changing a lot. I suspect that this is because these are semi-placeholder values and that there will be a balance pass later to differentiate things. So again, I suspect that there's not much point arguing effectiveness at this point, though obviously that depends on BI actually changing them later.

 

The PCML is very different from the rest, likely because it was "fully implemented" earlier as a test of the entire system. Also interesting to note that the PCML seems to have retained its direct hit damage, likely because of the whole attack/top attack thing. Or it might be incomplete, who knows.

[Strike_NOR 898]

1 hour ago, darkChozo said:

The PCML is very different from the rest, likely because it was "fully implemented" earlier as a test of the entire system. Also interesting to note that the PCML seems to have retained its direct hit damage, likely because of the whole attack/top attack thing. Or it might be incomplete, who knows.

 

It may be so. It may also be that the PCML uses an Explosively Formed Penetrator instead of a Shaped Charge Jet. An EFP acts more like a slug of metal and usually ends up being larger and travels slower than the SCJ. 

 

EFP velocities typically ~2km/s

SCJ velocities ~6-10km/s

 

The EFP can have longer standoff distance too because it does not "defocus" like the SCJ. That would fit well with the top attack of PCML.

 

Either way, nice find and I agree there are a lot of copy pasta placeholder values.

The biggest treasure you found here IMHO is 40mm penetrator, hinting towards finally getting true HEDP grenades for grenadiers! :D

[darkChozo 133]

The PCML submunition has the classname "ammo_Penetrator_NLAW_EFP", compared to most of the others which are _HEAT or _TandemHEAT. It also has a warheadName (a new parameter that determines armor effectiveness against different warhead types) of AP instead of the HEAT/TandemHEAT found on the other penetrators. So yeah, I think you may be right.

 

And yeah, I included the 40mm because it sounded particularly interesting. There's a G_40mm_HEDP ammo type that's being used by the Panther and Marid (different from the G_40mm_HE ammo used by UGLs, it has slightly better direct and slightly worse indirect damage), so I suspect that that's where this submunition is intended to be used, though it's not for now.

 

Also interesting to note, there are submunitions defined for the 35mm AAA gun and the 20/30mm cannons used by the Jets DLC fighters. Maybe we'll be seeing frag/flak rounds in the future?

[Strike_NOR 898]

43 minutes ago, darkChozo said:

there are submunitions defined for the 35mm AAA gun and the 20/30mm cannons used by the Jets DLC fighters.

 

Hmm.... I can see the 35mm AAA gun happening, to create proximity fuze airburst effect, but for 20 and 30mm there are no HEAT ammo variants as far as I know.

 

However, 20-30mm can have high-density penetrators inside that are armor piercing, these could be spawned as a submunition that inherit the parent ammo speed, but a lower caliber. Then the 20 and 30mm would be Multi-purpose ammunition as in Real life. The parent ammo causes HE damage, while the submunition causes penetration. Just wondering how that would work in terms of performance?

[twistking 204]

i was also hoping for 40mm hedp to be available for under-barrel grenade launchers.

 

not simply because of a "more is better" attitude, but because right now - even with the new launchers - fighting off a tanks/ifv as infantry is still a very "digital" affair. you either are equipped with a launcher and offered a realistic chance to kill the tank, or you are not equipped with a launcher and therefore have no chance of even damaging the tank/ifv.

 

a bunch of hedp 40mm would maybe provide you with a tiny (!) chance of at least damaging a tank (tracks f.e.) or maybe even injure crew in case of a ifv.

so, retreat would still be the only realistic option when facing (heavy) armor, but you would at least gain back some agency. a grenadiers last stand again attacking armor would still be suicide, but there could be that faint glimpse of hope...

[scavenjer 112]

43 minutes ago, twistking said:

i was also hoping for 40mm hedp to be available for under-barrel grenade launchers.

 

not simply because of a "more is better" attitude, but because right now - even with the new launchers - fighting off a tanks/ifv as infantry is still a very "digital" affair. you either are equipped with a launcher and offered a realistic chance to kill the tank, or you are not equipped with a launcher and therefore have no chance of even damaging the tank/ifv.

 

a bunch of hedp 40mm would maybe provide you with a tiny (!) chance of at least damaging a tank (tracks f.e.) or maybe even injure crew in case of a ifv.

so, retreat would still be the only realistic option when facing (heavy) armor, but you would at least gain back some agency. a grenadiers last stand again attacking armor would still be suicide, but there could be that faint glimpse of hope...

Well, IMO we should wait untill all the new launchers/RPGs use the new submunition system before we ask for more AT stuff, though I do think HEDP could be nice vs light vehicles.

[Strike_NOR 898]

The 40mm HEDP, as rumors have it, can penetrate about 2'' or 5cm of steel. This is enough to threaten any APC/MRAP or other lightly armored vehicle. I read somewhere that they were developed for shaped charge (HEAT) effect, but gained HE as a happy side-effect since the metal casing makes shrapnel. 

 

The HEDP is also favored against targets in urban areas that try to use walls for concealment. It can easily punch through typical building brick/concrete walls.

 

That would make the Hunter/Strider/Ifrit GMG a pretty dangerous thing! :)

[scavenjer 112]

5 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

The 40mm HEDP, as rumors have it, can penetrate about 2'' or 5cm of steel. This is enough to threaten any APC/MRAP or other lightly armored vehicle. I read somewhere that they were developed for shaped charge (HEAT) effect, but gained HE as a happy side-effect since the metal casing makes shrapnel. 

 

The HEDP is also favored against targets in urban areas that try to use walls for concealment. It can easily punch through typical building brick/concrete walls.

 

That would make the Hunter/Strider/Ifrit GMG a pretty dangerous thing! :)

Huh, yeah I have also read about a HESH version of HEDP 40mm, some games model them to have roughly 50mm of penetration like you say.

Most definitely capable against most APCs, though I doubt they would do much damage internally.

[Ex3B 266]

3 hours ago, darkChozo said:

Also interesting to note, there are submunitions defined for the 35mm AAA gun and the 20/30mm cannons used by the Jets DLC fighters. Maybe we'll be seeing frag/flak rounds in the future?

 

2 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

 

Hmm.... I can see the 35mm AAA gun happening, to create proximity fuze airburst effect, but for 20 and 30mm there are no HEAT ammo variants as far as I know.

 

However, 20-30mm can have high-density penetrators inside that are armor piercing, these could be spawned as a submunition that inherit the parent ammo speed, but a lower caliber. Then the 20 and 30mm would be Multi-purpose ammunition as in Real life. The parent ammo causes HE damage, while the submunition causes penetration. Just wondering how that would work in terms of performance?

I would hope that any submunition parameters for these ammo classes are for the purpose of a rough simulation of Armor Piercing Incendiary rounds.

 

Also, I think it would be great if there were multiple scalpel/DAGR/Rocket variants.

I haven't heard much on the rocket front, but for example we have Shrieker AP and Shrieker HE varieties. The AP variety seems like it should get a HEAT warhead.

DAGRs are based on unguided 70mm rockets, and there are HEAT warhead varieties of those as well.

Hellfire missiles can also have a variety of warheads (including thermobaric, they aren't all AT/HEAT missiles), the Scalpel seems to be based on this sort of missile (or perhaps its derivative/successor the Brimstone missile).

I noticed that Scalpels used to be able to 1 shot a small radar installation (relevant for user created missions), but now it can't. In many cases for destroying buildings with a tank main gun, HE rounds are better than Sabot rounds. If these new HEAT rounds with their submunitions are going to act a bit less like HE rounds and a bit more like sabot round, maybe an HE variety is desirable.

[darkChozo 133]

I scraped some numbers from today's update: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18b9zW2IjBt7DFks5SzJegIP5fZhK83RZM3Zg3OqMWgk/edit#gid=253063913

 

These look a lot less placeholder-y than Friday's. I'd assume that these are more representative of what we can expect from the final release.

 

Short notes from looking through the data:

• The RPG-42, MAAWS, and PCML seem to be trading off between caliber and hit value, with the RPG-42 having the highest caliber and the PCML having the highest hit. Dunno how this reflects in their actual effectiveness, or what this is based on.
• The Vorona is now a little stronger than the Titan AT, and both are stronger than the lighter launchers. Yay!
• The SPG-9 seems to be pretty close to the 105mm cannon in terms of potency, though obviously it can only fire HEAT/HE.

[alessiomoreno 43]

Amidst all of this - has it been considered/ is there a remote chance  - we'll see new types of projectiles for the RPG-7?

As an APEX owner, that would have been a very, very much welcomed addition, since it would fill a gap in the AT role in between the now standard RPG-7 and MAAWS.

Pure gold in terms of the systems usefulness in any MP environment!

 

 ~

[scavenjer 112]

The Scalpel and Macer do not seem to use their top-attack mode at the moment, also, are they supposed to only be top-attack?

I wouldn't mind either way, though for scalpel this could be a little bit too powerful.

[Strike_NOR 898]

35 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

The Scalpel and Macer do not seem to use their top-attack mode at the moment, also, are they supposed to only be top-attack?

I wouldn't mind either way, though for scalpel this could be a little bit too powerful.

 

Don't you mean the other way around? The maverick (Macer) is huge and I don't even think the real thing needs/has top attack due to that fact.

 

Scalpel is really hard to find a real life counterpart to, but it is way smaller than the Macer - so it shouldn't be too OP.

[oukej 2911]

1 hour ago, alessiomoreno said:

Amidst all of this - has it been considered/ is there a remote chance  - we'll see new types of projectiles for the RPG-7?

As an APEX owner, that would have been a very, very much welcomed addition, since it would fill a gap in the AT role in between the now standard RPG-7 and MAAWS.

Pure gold in terms of the systems usefulness in any MP environment!

I'm not sure if we aren't still limited by different model of the munition on the weapon.
 

1 hour ago, scavenjer said:

The Scalpel and Macer do not seem to use their top-attack mode at the moment, also, are they supposed to only be top-attack?

I wouldn't mind either way, though for scalpel this could be a little bit too powerful.

They have some relatively high min. distance below which they fly just straight.

[Strike_NOR 898]

15 minutes ago, oukej said:

They have some relatively high min. distance below which they fly just straight.

 

Aha. So if you are really far away, it basically goes into kindof a "cruise mode" and once it reaches that high min distance, it dives down, but still at a comparatively shallow angle compared to say a Titan?