Tanks - SP Mini-campaign and Showcase

[zozo 104]

Hi there!

We've released the Altis Requiem mini-campaign and the Showcase Tank Destroyers to the dev-branch. 

 

ALTIS REQUIEM 

 

 

• mini-campaign including 3 missions
• parallel story to the East Wind campaign
• player commands the new AWC Nyx and later the T-140 Angara Main Battle Tank against much powerful enemy
• different endings based on playstyle and performance

 

 

SHOWCASE TANK DESTROYERS

 

 

• play as a NATO crewman on board the new Rhino MGS UP
• use its similar firepower to a Main Battle Tank (120mm cannon, top-down laser guided missiles, etc.)
• utilize its agility and speed against various type of enemy, but keep in mind its vulnerability

 

Feel free to play and post your feedback here!

[xxgetbuck123 945]

Just recently got half way through the MGS Showcase. Must say most fun I've had so far! The Radio comms, the immersion, the mission as a whole, the combined arms, just the overall feel. I felt very immersed the entire time I played. Wish more missions were like this!

[Electricleash 133]

I enjoyed the new showcase. It has good momentum once it gets going and works well as a relatively easy intro/info piece for the new and changed systems.

I have no real critique for the actual gameplay throughout the showcase however, aesthetically, the opening scene seems to fall a bit flat to me compared to previous showcases.

I'll add a few points in spoilers below:

Spoiler

• I reckon It's largely down to the start points' location choice but I guess it makes sense from a real-world logistical/impromptu stand point.
• From a gameplay point of view, having the player initially facing away from the intended direction of geographical/narrative movement, can sometimes create initial disorientation.

• The camp composition could do with more 'energy'. The AI animations are very static. Especially that guy who walks across in front of you at the beginning. The soldiers all seem to be in a frozen animation state.
• I would imagine troops to be a bit more kinetic this close to the front lines and getting ready for the next push, with soldiers, mechanics and vehicles rushing about etc.
• Sound effects are minimal here, feels too quiet. Having vehicle engines on, bang, bang, buzz, buzz of repairs etc. could really add to the flavour. I've always thought it would be good to have ambient voices, even In a muffled background, indicernable way would add to the scene.
• The player starts with weapon up, Maybe just my taste but I prefer starting the opening scene weapon down and allow the player to choose when to get his weapon ready. It also looks more cinematic with an initially clear screen.

• The Helicopter bringing in fuel flies right over top of some firing artillery. I'm by no means an expert on this matter but that seems an illogically dangerous flight path. Maybe better having his flight path along the runway where the A164 Wipeout is inbound, and at a lower altitude, for better player visibility, and general scene noise.

Edit:

• Grass-cutter objects around the camp to show where troops and vehicles have been moving are always a good idea.

 

I haven't got any feedback for the Campaign yet, I enjoyed my initial run through and I don't remember anything standing out as worth critiquing.

Good stuff all in all.

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by Electricleash
Additional info

[teabagginpeople 398]

spoilers. tank bug

Spoiler

Lost horizons- the NYX searching the forest, hit off the side of a bolder at about 5 kpm and tank exploded. 

 

my second test the track died first hit off the bolder. hitting the bolder again caused full explosion of the tank. these are not high speed collisions.

This should perhaps be in general discussion. if a mod can move please.

[zozo 104]

14 hours ago, teabagginpeople said:

This should perhaps be in general discussion. if a mod can move please.

Moved to the internal chat. If you had a screenshot of the place, it would be great ;)

[Bobrus 29]

19 hours ago, Electricleash said:

I enjoyed the new showcase. It has good momentum once it gets going and works well as a relatively easy intro/info piece for the new and changed systems.

I have no real critique for the actual gameplay throughout the showcase however, aesthetically, the opening scene seems to fall a bit flat to me compared to previous showcases.

I'll add a few points in spoilers below:

  Reveal hidden contents

• I reckon It's largely down to the start points' location choice but I guess it makes sense from a real-world logistical/impromptu stand point.
• From a gameplay point of view, having the player initially facing away from the intended direction of geographical/narrative movement, can sometimes create initial disorientation.

• The camp composition could do with more 'energy'. The AI animations are very static. Especially that guy who walks across in front of you at the beginning. The soldiers all seem to be in a frozen animation state.
• I would imagine troops to be a bit more kinetic this close to the front lines and getting ready for the next push, with soldiers, mechanics and vehicles rushing about etc.
• Sound effects are minimal here, feels too quiet. Having vehicle engines on, bang, bang, buzz, buzz of repairs etc. could really add to the flavour. I've always thought it would be good to have ambient voices, even In a muffled background, indicernable way would add to the scene.
• The player starts with weapon up, Maybe just my taste but I prefer starting the opening scene weapon down and allow the player to choose when to get his weapon ready. It also looks more cinematic with an initially clear screen.

• The Helicopter bringing in fuel flies right over top of some firing artillery. I'm by no means an expert on this matter but that seems an illogically dangerous flight path. Maybe better having his flight path along the runway where the A164 Wipeout is inbound, and at a lower altitude, for better player visibility, and general scene noise.

Edit:

• Grass-cutter objects around the camp to show where troops and vehicles have been moving are always a good idea.

 

I haven't got any feedback for the Campaign yet, I enjoyed my initial run through and I don't remember anything standing out as worth critiquing.

Good stuff all in all.

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

I disagree - helicopter flight path seems fine to me. But yes, camp is a bit quiet and static. 

 

 

Anyway, I have much enjoyed the new showcase :) 

 

 

[mistyronin 1181]

Interesting missions. I liked the showcase, its quite round. The first mission of the campaign was really enjoyable and well made, I really felt inside the plot. The next two missions were a tad Call of Dutish for my taste (I killed more than 50 enemies in each), I rather take a more simulation approach using no interface assistance. 

 

In any case, good work! It was great to see you added a SP mini campaign again in the DLCs. Big thumbs up.

[R3vo 2654]

Have just finished the showcase and I found it very enjoyable. Well balanced difficulty!

[IndeedPete 1038]

I've played through both the showcase and the mini-campaign. Disclaimer: take this with a pinch of salt as at some point I started cheating and made myself invincible because I just couldn't be bothered with AI vehicle commanding. It's infuriatingly frustrating. This is really the biggest gripe I had with both the Tanks and also the TacOps DLC. With that out of the way...

 

Showcase:

It's enjoyable overall but the pacing was a little bit too fast for me. Too many things happening either at the same time or shortly in between. While I was just finishing off a bunch of enemies, still heavily struggling with the command interface, I already got the task to launch some missile somewhere. Didn't even have time to properly read the hint and figuring out where the hell on this tank the missiles might be hidden - while still fighting off stragglers - and already got shouted at for not firing the missile. Eventually, I failed the task. This was pretty frustrating and left a sour taste on the showcase. Just try to slow it down a little.

 

Campaign:

It was okay-ish but nothing to write home about. The story feels cheesy and a bit off. I can't really put my finger on it though. Maybe it's the presentation with the diary and all that heavy dialogue that somehow tries to force some deep character down my throat within just three missions. Anyway, mission one feels detached from the other two, the big jump in time is a bit strange. I was really looking forward to the small AAF tank because it is something new for me, while the new MBT is nice and all but I feel I've seen it before. Hence I was a bit disappointed I only had one small mission with the Nyx before the game forced me into the Angara. And the Angara missions weren't particularly inspiring either. Go there, shoot some tanks, end. There would have been a lot more potential, like being embedded in a bigger tank platoon, or - coming back to the Nyx - having different scenarios (recon / ambushes, MOUT, AA, ...) and not just head-on tank engagements.

 

All in all, the tanks are pretty cool but the AI commanding killed the playable content for me.

 

[lexx 1363]

I liked the showcase quite a lot. Didn't had much problems with it either. Probably depends a lot on how well you can handle armored vehicles in A3.

 

Already posted about the campaign in the dev-branch thread, but might as well repeat myself here...

 

I totally agree on the first mission. I think it starts out pretty well, but then cut and big time jump. It's really lacking another mission here. Something to deepen the character(s), etc.

I also liked the first part of mission 2. The second, not so much anymore... Don't know what exactly it is. Maybe because the forward base looks and feels kinda weird or because it feels tacked on... no idea.

Third mission is the worst, because it showcases the horrible ai to a great extend. It's a meat grinder mission where mindless lemmings keep coming at you from the same pathway. Also feels very anti-climatic to how I expect NATO to handle the situation. No artillery? No air assets? Just "throw some tanks at the enemy and see what happens!"? Eh... I totally see why stuff was done the way it has been, but I just don't find it to be the best solution.

 

 

About commanding... It's the most painless if you stay in the gunner-role for most of the time. Being the commander and giving orders doesn't really work that well in the third mission, as you need to be quick.

 

All in all I still like this DLC quite a lot. Really wish the Helicopters DLC would have gotten some more singleplayer missions as well.

[heavygunner 179]

I only played the showcase and would agree that shits pretty fast and especially hard not because of challenging enemies but your AI teammates being the ones that are challenged, which makes it quite frustrating.

[darkChozo 133]

If you gun for yourself, you don't really have to depend on the AI at all. It does take a bit of getting used to, though; I found it pretty difficult to keep track of everything the first time I played the showcase, but after doing the campaign and coming back it was a lot easier.

[heavygunner 179]

Spoiler

 

If you gun for yourself you have to drive for yourself while gunning,ranging and searching 360 degrees around you, while being ready to instantly switch to commander when you need countermeasures, which are for some reason not an automated response. In the campaign which I now finished things get even worse, since you assumingly have to defend yourself alone against an A10 with your 12.7mm commander gun and the third you get to attack a helicopter with your 20mm. So that makes 360 degrees 3 Dimensional awareness, while fighting a whole tank platoon for yourself, being your own air defense and strategist, a job that's probably done by a whole platoon.

 

Also the Angara shouldn't be penetratable by the marshal IFV from the front, which it currently can and does.

 

€: Third mission of the campaign: Need more time to destroy  the tank at the end, Nato probably can't get these sweet secrets just because I couldn't destroy the tank in 2 minutes after the fighting stopped.

 

 

[Ex3B 266]

The last part of the tank destroyer mission reminded me of how much of a misnomer "Tank Destroyer" is for the stryker Rhino MGS.

The Stryker MGS is not meant to take on tanks, and the Rhino shouldn't be either.

It takes multiple APFDS rounds to take out enemy tanks, and 1 (sometimes 2 if you get lucky) rounds from the enemy tank to knock out your rhino.

 

Its great for fire support. Its great as an IFV destroyer, but a tank destroyer would be something more like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanonenjagdpanzer

 

Heck, the Nyx AT may also count as a tank destroyer, maybe moreso than the Rhino

[mistyronin 1181]

5 hours ago, Ex3B said:

The last part of the tank destroyer mission reminded me of how much of a misnomer "Tank Destroyer" is for the stryker Rhino MGS.

 

The Stryker MGS is not meant to take on tanks...

 

I’m afraid it’s not a Stryker MGS -which is an assault gun to support infantry-, but a Rooikat (photo below), and like the Italian Centauro it’s a recon vehicle with anti-tank capabilities.

 

They can be pretty effective shoting down tanks. They were designed to do so. But of course, they don’t usually work alone in real life.

 

And indeed, they are called tank-destroyers in RL.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooikat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B1_Centauro

 

[Ex3B 266]

I am aware that its not a Stryker MGS. I'm just saying that the Stryker MGS is the best example we have of a vehicle like that being used in actual military operations, and the US military doctrine is not for them to seek out combat with tanks.

The stryker MGS would be even better at this than the Rookat, because the Striker MGS has a 105mm gun, and the Rooikat has a 76mm gun.

There was a 105mm prototype Rooikat, but they mostly use a 76mm gun. Their intended targets are not modern MBTs, but old soviet built T-55s, and APCs.... and of course they ended up serving as fire support vehicles for infantry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooikat#Service

Quote

New SANDF doctrine placed an emphasis on the Rooikat's primary role of reconnaissance, as well as the harassment of enemy rearguard units. In a marked departure from the manoeuvre-oriented anti-tank tactics of the South African Border War, Rooikat crews were also trained to engage tanks only from defile or otherwise static defensive positions.

Just prior to general elections in 1994, the South African Army deployed the Rooikat for internal patrols.[17] During the Southern African Development Community intervention in Lesotho, Rooikats of the Special Service Battalion were called up to reinforce South African mechanised units then skirmishing with Lesotho Army mutineers. The armoured cars arrived in Maseru, the capital of Lesotho, on 22 September 1998 and participated in various security operations.

 

Its a great APC/IFV destroyer, but sending these against tanks is not a good idea. They are just as high profile, and lightly armored. 1 v 1, a tank has a massive advantage. Tank destroyers can also be meant to simply have favorable attrition rates against tanks, being capable of knocking them out, but much cheaper. This leads mainly to small vehicles with ATGMs, like the Nyx.

They are a mobile gun system, that can be used against tanks if required, but they aren't a tank "hunter" like many tank destroyers are meant to be.

The term tank destroyer is a bit vague, but I don't think it fits very well. I consider it a fire support vehicle, that would probably do well with marshals and infantry squads. It can take out enemy IFVs long beyond the effective range of most IFV weapons, and drop HE rounds onto enemy positions to better effect than the 40mm of a marshall

 

That said, I do like the addition. I'm enjoying using it to slaughter enemy IFVs... but when a tank is encountered, its more of an "oh sh1t", I need to get into cover, and see if I can engage it from a hull down position, because that's the only way its going to win the fight.

 

*edit* to further the argument, the other vehicle you gave as an example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B1_Centauro#Combat_history

Quote

Centauro was deployed in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia, where the design proved successful. Centauro was usually employed to escort motor convoys, for wide area control and for road patrols.

Centauros were also deployed during operation Antica Babilonia, the Italian involvement in the Iraq War. During this operation, a Centauro troop took part in the battle for the bridges of Nassiriya, destroying a building where snipers were hiding.

In the end, these mobile gun systems basically end up providing fire support to infantry, and avoiding modern MBTs.

Some designers may have intended them as a TDs, but its not the first time where designs end up being best used for something other than what they were intended for.

 

[dragon01 902]

Do note that the Rhino does have ATGMs, too. Nowhere it is said that it's supposed to engage tanks with the APFSDS. While it could probably use a damage increase, in principle the ATGM can be fired from a longer range than the guns on most modern tanks, making the Rhino very much capable of serving as a tank destroyer. It can also use APFSDS while in defilade, and is probably much lighter and cheaper than a tank. As long as you're not caught at medium range with your pants down, the proper course of action when running into a tank would be to load up the ATGMs, paint it and take it out from long range.

[Strike_NOR 898]

1 minute ago, dragon01 said:

While it could probably use a damage increase, in principle the ATGM can be fired from a longer range than the guns on most modern tanks, making the Rhino very much capable of serving as a tank destroyer.

 

I have a strong suspicion that HEAT is going to receive a rework before tanks DLC release, in which case, top-down attack will have a much higher likelihood of reaching the crew and taking them out. This means that tanks will more frequently be incapacitated by crew loss rather than vehicle destruction. I hope :)

[R3vo 2654]

I played the whole showcase as commander and had no issues with AI commanding at all. Also, I thought its pace was pretty balanced, one had always time to look for the right position to attack from and so on.

Just make sure you have your controls set so you can drive the tank yourself when you are commander or gunner.

[IndeedPete 1038]

@People saying one should just stay in the gunner seat: I can see where you are coming from (and maybe I'll try it again that way) but I tend to say in the driver seat because again, commanding the driver is so wobbly and unreliable. Not sure if it was because of DevBranch, but often times when I had the AI driver stop the vehicle, he randomly started moving it again. I feel in order to play vehicles effectively (particularly with all the AT infantry around) one needs to be able to navigate precisely from cover to cover, like when playing infantry. I just cannot do that remote controlling the AI driver, it's not precise enough. Also, the constant radio babbling (forward-forward-back-left-stop-forward-forward-forward...) is so damn annoying. Another plus when dirving myself is that I don't just get run over by the driver when I disembark the vehicle because he suddenly feels the urge to get back into formation - even if I issued a stop command before.

[R3vo 2654]

Quote

@People saying one should just stay in the gunner seat: I can see where you are coming from (and maybe I'll try it again that way) but I tend to say in the driver seat because again, commanding the driver is so wobbly and unreliable. Not sure if it was because of DevBranch, but often times when I had the AI driver stop the vehicle, he randomly started moving it again.

That's probably because you have the drive vehicle controls on the same keys as command vehicles. Check you control settings.

[IndeedPete 1038]

Could be. Though I'm using the vanilla layout. I would rather think this was just a bug. It never occured in the stable versions of the game.

[R3vo 2654]

Just now, IndeedPete said:

Could be. Though I'm using the vanilla layout. I would rather think this was just a bug. It never occured in the stable versions of the game.

Controls were changed on dev, but the key layout wasn't changed. I see alot of players struggle with that once the DLC is released.

[Electricleash 133]

Sorry getting a bit away from topic but Yes, I think the current default controls layout is all over the place and causes probably a lot more confusion amongst players than it should.

After I unbound the Command forward/left/right/back controls to the arrow keys instead of WASD, things went much smoother.

Arrow keys for issuing move commands and WASD for fine control makes for getting into a hull down position much easier, which seems to be a good strategy for these scenarios.

[R3vo 2654]

18 minutes ago, Electricleash said:

Sorry getting a bit away from topic but Yes, I think the current default controls layout is all over the place and causes probably a lot more confusion amongst players than it should.

After I unbound the Command forward/left/right/back controls to the arrow keys instead of WASD, things went much smoother.

Arrow keys for issuing move commands and WASD for fine control makes for getting into a hull down position much easier, which seems to be a good strategy for these scenarios.

I agree, CTRL+WSAD works fine too.