No T-80UM / T-90 in ArmA? is that smart?

[D.murphy man 0]

Why are we complaining about what vehicles are not in game? i dont recall any officle list being released of the vehicles and eqiupment thatll be included in the game? And as i far as i know, no one here (apart from BIS) have got the game at home and on their HD yet.

The only thing we got to go on is a few screenshots and some video footage.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

It has been 100% confirmed that T-80s won't be in the game initially. :/

[berghoff 11]

Why are we complaining about what vehicles are not in game? i dont recall any officle list being released of the vehicles and eqiupment thatll be included in the game? And as i far as i know, no one here (apart from BIS) have got the game at home and on their HD yet.

The only thing we got to go on is a few screenshots and some video footage.

Because some ppl think this may cause "unfair" balance in "wars". Totally untrue, there are many ways to balance a mission by just putting extra AT soldiers on one side. I never seen a balanced war anyway.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

North Sahrani seems very poorly equipped. Now, no army would field a single type of tank, that would be nonsense. Even poor ex-commie states have several types of tanks left over from the glory days of the USSR. So i really think NS should have a few lesser tanks atleast. If the T-72 is the top of the line tank then fine. But it's a pretty big stretch for any army no matter how underequipped to field a single type of tank. NS should have a few T-55s, T-64s. I mean even iraq was better equipped in the armor department.

Not to mention that the north's APC roster is also pretty under-equipped. Only BMP-2s and BRDMs? I understand it's an island republic but then they should have a naval presence if they don't have a good landbased force and i don't see BIS including capital ships anytime soon, so lets just stick with a beefier groundforce. An old style commie force would have a few MT-LBs - for example - to tow around artillery and supplies into areas where trucks don't go too well (like the mountanous northern region). The MT-LB is pretty versatile in terms of equipment, slap a few ATGMs on that cheap tin-can and it can provide some good AT capabilities to the infantry it was carrying, or it can become an AA battery with anything from ZSU-32-2 to SA-13s, so such an APC would be valuable to a budget army (more then a BMP-2 atleast). Sahrani also seems to have a well developed road network so if i would've been in charge of buying equipment then a few BTR-80s would've been ok, for a faster response force in urban areas.

Ok ok, i understand BIS has a lot to do and all these vehicles need testing and stuff that takes time away from more important stuff, but i still think the north could have a more versatile ground force.

Then there are some inconsistencies with other equipment. The NS seems to have blown all it's spare change away on AK-74s (the guns are obviously 74s not 47 because of the barrel), interceptor body armor and some Ka-52s (!! ) - look at the 32 second mark on the GC trailer, and interviews have stated that South Sahrani doesn't have an airforce so it's obviously northern. So Northern Sahrani seems more spendthrift then it's armoured force would imply. These are some expesive things to own for an army whose best MBT is the T-72 (and judging from screens of this T-72 it's not a version that poses a threat to an Abrams).

Just my 20,- HUForints.

edit: BIS should really fix it when you put a ) after a ! you get a    >_<

i know of an army that only has a boat! Frogot the country name tho

id just though i'd say luxemburg, there only military naval vessal is a small gunboat.

[D.murphy man 0]

Why are we complaining about what vehicles are not in game? i dont recall any officle list being released of the vehicles and eqiupment thatll be included in the game? And as i far as i know, no one here (apart from BIS) have got the game at home and on their HD yet.

The only thing we got to go on is a few screenshots and some video footage.

Because some ppl think this may cause "unfair" balance in "wars". Totally untrue, there are many ways to balance a mission by just putting extra AT soldiers on one side. I never seen a balanced war anyway.

My point was more, why are we complaining about X vehicle not being included if we still dont even 100% know what vehicles are going to be included in the first place. But yes i agree, we dont need both sides having vehicles that are equalivants of each other. Games can be balanced other ways, like more infantry AT rockets for one side, less tanks for the other, more air craft for another side etc.... If a mission is unblanced its the mission designers fault not because BIS didnt included a T80 to counter the M1A1.

[Hurby 0]

And as i far as i know, no one here (apart from BIS) have got the game at home and on their HD yet.

Some ppl from the czech community have it to test MP, but they can't give us any info, you should understand why...

As for CTI, it shouldn't be much of a problem if T-72 was cheaper than M1A1, they would simply outnumber the opponent...

Oh yeah and it's quite strange that RTS players don't mind that each side has different units and different gameplay style, why should anyone mind that in ArmA? Just take more T-72s with AI crew than the opponent does with M1A1s, because you should be able to get them much cheaper...

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I don't see the problem. OFP wasn't balanced, and we never had this problem in OFP. BIS T80 v BIS M1A1? Come on, the T80 never stood a chance there.

Yes, it stood...did you even play the multiplayer ?

There is a big difference between T80 vs M1 and BMP vs M1.

If T-80 could land the first shot and move somewhere then M1 and T80 became balanced. One of players from my clan is really good in tank. M1 is not a problem to bust when in T80 for him.

Now BMP or Shilka or T72 vs M1 is a joke. Too slow reload(T-72) or damage (Shilka) to counter M1. BMP can take M1 out but if M1 finds the BMP, it would take one shot for M1 to kill the BMP.

T80 vs M1 wasn't balanced. It was more even than T72 vs M1, but that doesn't make it balanced. But how do we solve that?

By smart mission designing!

Most people seem to have a lot of ideas for features that they want to see in ArmA. The strange thing is that it's already in OFP, just that they haven't got their fat arses out of that telly-couch and learnt how to handle the editor properly.

True, but the T-72 and the M60 wasn't balanced neither... It kinda evened it out. Just like the bmp was better than the m113.

[Heatseeker 0]

True, but the T-72 and the M60 wasn't balanced neither... It kinda evened it out. Just like the bmp was better than the m113.

But you could use the BMP2 and the Bradley .

[Denwad 0]

BMP2 is much smaller than the bradely

a shilka, gepard etc. would have a field day with helicopters, turn off the search radar and use the 30mm cannons to swat the helos away like flies.

[olemissrebel 0]

I say who gives a damn, I'd personally just love to play they game however they release it. Afterall people, they gave us OFP, and resistance. Have more faith in BIS, they won't let us down!

[xnodunitx 0]

Heres the part to consider,40 vehicles were stated in the first place,we'v seen less than that,we have no gotten a listing of what vehicles there are yet,and if a vehicle is not ingame then it can always be added.

[franze 196]

a shilka, gepard etc. would have a field day with helicopters, turn off the search radar and use the 30mm cannons to swat the helos away like flies.

Maybe for early helicopters - not modern ones. When attack helicopters have radar and stand off weapons, the 3-5k maximum range of mid-range AAA really blows. That's always a big problem - getting close enough to use those guns. Sucks when the helicopters can stand off from 8k+ and send a few missiles your way. Or when they call in some artillery. Or an airstrike.

Have I mentioned that you probably won't see them? You go and try to find a helicopter flying NOE six klicks from your position over the mountains of Azerbaijan. You might get lucky and have them overfly your position, but they might get lucky and pummel you with a few rockets, too. They also might see you long before you see them and pop you with a suprise or two.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Heres the part to consider,40 vehicles were stated in the first place,we'v seen less than that,we have no gotten a listing of what vehicles there are yet,and if a vehicle is not ingame then it can always be added.

weve seen alot.  Include all the tanks, aircraft, jeeps, trucks, boats and civilan veicles and weve seen itleast 30. As you say i think theres going to be more...

[AussieYank 0]

If we're going to go along with this line of thinking, how about then giving the Abrams the option of installing a TUSK . Not to mention bird-cages for the Strykers.

[EiZei 0]

If we're going to go along with this line of thinking, how about then  giving the Abrams the option of installing a TUSK . Not to mention bird-cages for the Strykers.

I recall reading TUSK was cancelled somewhere.

[Sosna 0]

I was thinking... In reality an Abrams needs 4 crew, a T72 needs only 3 since it has an autoloader.

If BIS makes the M1 need a player to be the loader then this balance issue might be somewhat resolved...

Most often in player versus player OFP I only see one player per tank and the player switches between driver/gunner. If a manual loader were implemented in the Abrams then a single person in the tank would be a lot less effective since he would have to switch between gunner/driver and loader positions meanwhile having to perform all the functions, and probably losing sight of the enemy (it would also help the balance if BIS makes the time it takes to switch positions more realistic).

A player in a T72 would only need to switch between gunner and driver, in the meantime he might be able to get an extra shot off before the Abrams, and the T72 could move out of sight of the M1 gunners position, making the Abrams have to find the enemy tank again.

If this were implemented then I think every M1 would most likely need at least 2 crew for every 1 person in a T72 in order to be equally effective. If the mission provides 2 T72 for every Abrams then balance might be feasable since the "east" side would have the manpower.

[AussieYank 0]

I was thinking... In reality an Abrams needs 4 crew, a T72 needs only 3 since it has an autoloader.

If BIS makes the M1 need a player to be the loader then this balance issue might be somewhat resolved...

Most often in player versus player OFP I only see one player per tank and the player switches between driver/gunner. If a manual loader were implemented in the Abrams then a single person in the tank would be a lot less effective since he would have to switch between gunner/driver and loader positions meanwhile having to perform all the functions, and probably losing sight of the enemy (it would also help the balance if BIS makes the time it takes to switch positions more realistic).

A player in a T72 would only need to switch between gunner and driver, in the meantime he might be able to get an extra shot off before the Abrams, and the T72 could move out of sight of the M1 gunners position, making the Abrams have to find the enemy tank again.

If this were implemented then I think every M1 would most likely need at least 2 crew for every 1 person in a T72 in order to be equally effective. If the mission provides 2 T72 for every Abrams then balance might be feasable since the "east" side would have the manpower.

Though you would have to factor in the fact that the Autoloader on the T-72 is unreliable, slower than what a trained loader can do, and is dangerous to the gunner.

As per the TUSK, its still being issued out to tank crews. Its critical, since it corrects most of the weak points of the Abrams in combat.

[Ukraineboy 0]

I was thinking... In reality an Abrams needs 4 crew, a T72 needs only 3 since it has an autoloader.

If BIS makes the M1 need a player to be the loader then this balance issue might be somewhat resolved...

Most often in player versus player OFP I only see one player per tank and the player switches between driver/gunner. If a manual loader were implemented in the Abrams then a single person in the tank would be a lot less effective since he would have to switch between gunner/driver and loader positions meanwhile having to perform all the functions, and probably losing sight of the enemy (it would also help the balance if BIS makes the time it takes to switch positions more realistic).

A player in a T72 would only need to switch between gunner and driver, in the meantime he might be able to get an extra shot off before the Abrams, and the T72 could move out of sight of the M1 gunners position, making the Abrams have to find the enemy tank again.

If this were implemented then I think every M1 would most likely need at least 2 crew for every 1 person in a T72 in order to be equally effective. If the mission provides 2 T72 for every Abrams then balance might be feasable since the "east" side would have the manpower.

Though you would have to factor in the fact that the Autoloader on the T-72 is unreliable, slower than what a trained loader can do, and is dangerous to the gunner.

As per the TUSK, its still being issued out to tank crews. Its critical, since it corrects most of the weak points of the Abrams in combat.

1.) It's unreliable if the crew does not properly maintain it.

2.) How is it dangerous to the gunner?

[Second 0]

Though you would have to factor in the fact that the Autoloader on the T-72 is unreliable, slower than what a trained loader can do, and is dangerous to the gunner.

As per the TUSK, its still being issued out to tank crews. Its critical, since it corrects most of the weak points of the Abrams in combat.

Dangerous! Well i haven't heard any complaints about autoloader in our military and i can say that T-72 wouldn't be used if autoloader would be dangerous to gunner. That dangerous thing is for manual loading, if something happens to autoloader: If it gets jammed or something like that.. Manual loading is for emergency situations, when tank can't be driven to back for repair.

Is autoloader more unrealible than human loader? Human can panic, get wounded, get deadly tired without sleep or if loader gets sick?

Ofcourse autoloader has it's weakpoint with that blowing-up thing, But when ~500 mm of steel shatter from sabot round, or hot pieces of armor from HEAT blast, scatter allaround turretspace. It's almost the same to crew in turret as autoloader would blow-up, That is what i think, but has someone better knowledge? I would be happy if someone could educate me

I just can't wait that T-72 would have Tshu1, Sthora, Arena, Kaktus ERA... Russian innovations at their best! TUSK offers nearly nothing protection comparing to these. I would start hunting M1A1 than T-72. T-72 would be almost immortal against AT-infantry.

[Radnik 18]

I just can't wait that T-72 would have Tshu1, Sthora, Arena, Kaktus ERA... Russian innovations at their best! TUSK offers nearly nothing protection comparing to these. I would start hunting M1A1 than T-72. T-72 would be almost immortal against AT-infantry.

you mean something like this

This is Serbian version of T-90S (M84AB1)...with all fancy gadgets...shtora, 9M119 Refleks(AT-11 Sniper),...etc. but my favourite, commanders 12.7mm mg can be used from inside turet now!. This is pic from early stage of improvement somewere in early 2005, so by now it's probably even more modernized!

[zedderzulu 7]

I did hear stories that gunner's arms could often get caught up in the autoloader, and then have their arms loaded instead of the shell - or along with the shell. But I don't know how much of that is just annecdotal ( spelling!?! ) as I've only seen it mentioned in one place, and the attitude of many of the people they were interviewing about the T-72 seemed to be going "Huh, Russians! Huh-huh, can you believe it? Russians trying to build something, huhuhuh!".

The program was actually "Top 10 Greatest Tanks Ever" or something and the T-72 came in 7th. Funnily enough, the T-34 came home third. It was beaten by the Abrams, but that was beaten by the Leopard.

I'm a big fan of the T-72 actually - but unfortunately it seems that with the emphasis put on the tank to have as small as silhouette as possible, myself, being nearly 6'4", would not fit in a T-72. Perhaps, that might be an idea for Game2, if they are to fully incorporate different heights - some soldiers are too big to fit in certain vehicles

I actually also think Abrams = 4 vs T-72 = 3 would be a good idea. This could mean that a Western tank platoon leader could only command a total of three tanks in his/her platoon, while an Eastern leader could have four in the platoon. Whether that's realistic to real world OoB I don't know, but for game balance it could work out.

[Jezz 0]

The autoloader and gunners arm story is an urban myth just like the nasa space pen, if it really was a danger they would have just put a shield between the gunner and autoloader like the did with t-62s commander having a sheild between him and the ejection system

[Second 0]

I'm a big fan of the T-72 actually - but unfortunately it seems that with the emphasis put on the tank to have as small as silhouette as possible, myself, being nearly 6'4", would not fit in a T-72. Perhaps, that might be an idea for Game2, if they are to fully incorporate different heights - some soldiers are too big to fit in certain vehicles

In fact that "Top 10 Greatest Tanks Ever"-program was misleading in some facts. That you height isn't problem (atleast big if i calculated right that you are 190 cm), only load of BS in that program. Over 180 cm men have said that there wasn't any problem for them to fit in T-72.

[EiZei 0]

I'm a big fan of the T-72 actually - but unfortunately it seems that with the emphasis put on the tank to have as small as silhouette as possible, myself, being nearly 6'4", would not fit in a T-72. Perhaps, that might be an idea for Game2, if they are to fully incorporate different heights - some soldiers are too big to fit in certain vehicles

In fact that "Top 10 Greatest Tanks Ever"-program was misleading in some facts. That you height isn't problem (atleast big if i calculated right that you are 190 cm), only load of BS in that program. Over 180 cm men have said that there wasn't any problem for them to fit in T-72.

The T-55 on the other hand..

Still, our taller finnish tankers truly appreciate the roomier interiors of our recently acquired leopard 2s as opposed to both T-55 and T-72.

[Second 0]

The T-55 on the other hand..

Still, our taller finnish tankers truly appreciate the roomier interiors of our recently acquired leopard 2s as opposed to both T-55 and T-72.

Well ofcourse! As we finns nowdays appreciate luxury. Nothing can't win idea that coach could be fitted inside tanks... Playstation ofcourse and own canteen with Kossua and Olutta.