114 changes ArmA from light infantry game

[Tankbuster 1747]

I don't use beta patches so this came as quite a shock to me.

Either the armour has been made tougher or the power of anti tank has been reduced, either way, it's changed the game beyond recognition.

I play a bit of Evolution, a lot of Domination and some other coops.

In Domination for example, it was a usable tactic to sneak up on light armour and take it with a 136, but now, stuff like Shilkas and BMP's need 2 or even 3 direct hits with M136.

After the first hit, one of two things happen, the crew bails and you end up with a battlefield full of empty armour and annoyed crew members, or it turns on you instantly and shoots you in the face.

So, tactics have changed. Infantry can no longer get close in, they hang back and wait for the air assets to kill the armour, or the infantry have to get Javalin. Or, of course, infantry are forced to steal enemy heavy armour which gets the job done, but it really takes something away from the game for me.

I've even seen light armour like BRDM drive off having been hit by a 136. In the past, a lucky 136 might destroy a T72, now it's impossible to get the 3 or 4 rounds on it without being killed.

Aircraft are the same, a single stinger strike used to be almost guaranteed to own anything in the air. Kamov, Mil-17 or SU. They went down after being 'stung', but now they don't. Again, we end up with a battlefield full of wounded aircraft on the ground.

It upsets the scoring too, because an empty T72 or Kamov is effectively out of the game, yet the chap who shot it gets no points.

Such a shame. Yes my GTX fog is gone and that's most welcome, but ArmA is no longer about the infantry, the man on the ground, it's about the man with the missiles and bombs.

Although I don't much care for the ultra realists, I wonder what real worlds power the 136 has against everything from BRDM to T72?

[action man 0]

Hey why not try posting here matey

[Ezekiel 0]

And to answer your question, the AT-4 isn't designed to take out a main battle tank, it's designed for light armour (so yes, any vehicle featured in ArmA short of the T-72 and M1A1 should be susceptible to it, though not necessarily a 1-shot kill). The US use other weapons to take out heavy armour, the marines alone have at least 5 standard rocket launchers, the Javelin being the largest with the longest range and the AT-4 being the smallest. Also don't forget that the AT-4 is only meant to work up to 250 metres, it's not exactly meant to be fielded in tank battles. A very lucky infantryman might get behind an MBT in an urban environment and get a crippling hit on a T-72 (which are notoriously less capable than they're supposed to be anyway).

[Tankbuster 1747]

Thanks actionman, but this goes further than feedback. I'm suggesting the whole premise of the game has been changed by a patch.

Eze, You're right a single AT-4 can't take out an MBT and that's always been reflected in ArmA.

My problem is that I'm pretty sure a single AT-4 can take out a BMP, BRDM or Shilka and that's no longer the case in the game.

[-=seany=- 5]

I think you might change your opinion if you did some armor missions. I too was surprised by the changes. But after using them for a while they are fine. It didn't make sense that BMP, BRDM, UAZ, Shilka where all 1 shot complete kills. Most of the vehicles that used to be 1 shot kills are now quite heavily damaged after 1 m136, like the BRDM. It gives the crew a chance to bail. It felt no different, prior to these changes, driving either a BMP or a BRDM, 1 shot from an light AT and you where dead, which wasn't much fun. Now you get to survive and fight on foot with the BRDM and with the BMP you get a second chance to spot the enemy /run and repair, Id say the same goes for Stryker/M113.

Shilkas are still 1 shot kills, which may seem a bit odd compared to the BRDM's current armor value, but a Shilka shouldn't really be assaulting the enemy like a BRDM would (its not an apc), so it makes good game play balance to have it a 1 shot kill.

Yes, the new armor values do mean you get far less armor kills in some thing like Evo with the m136. But there is more to arma than the points board showing how many tank kills/points you have.

[Tankbuster 1747]

I think you might change your opinion if you did some armor missions.

Depends what you mean by armour mission? I'm assuming you say a mission that is primarily armour based, but I'm suggesting that armour is now so strong that pretty much anything with an APC is now, by your definition, an armour mission.

Let me just reiterate. I'm all in favour of MBTs surviving multiple RPG/136 hits. I'm not in favour of BRDM's, BMP's and Shilka's taking 2 hits to brew up. Likewise for aircraft. A Stinger should take out any helicopter short of a Hind. There's no way an MI17 should be able to make a controlled landing having been hit by a Stinger.

[Tankbuster 1747]

But there is more to arma than the points board showing how many tank kills/points you have.

There is? This is a game. Points chart my progress in the game and if I'm neutralizing armour (and air) targets without getting points for it, then something isn't right.

[frederf 0]

But there is more to arma than the points board showing how many tank kills/points you have.

There is? This is a game. Points chart my progress in the game and if I'm neutralizing armour (and air) targets without getting points for it, then something isn't right.

The something that isn't right might be you then.

[Tankbuster 1747]

But there is more to arma than the points board showing how many tank kills/points you have.

There is? This is a game. Points chart my progress in the game and if I'm neutralizing armour (and air) targets without getting points for it, then something isn't right.

The something that isn't right might be you then.

Tell me more, please?

[Second 0]

But there is more to arma than the points board showing how many tank kills/points you have.

There is? This is a game. Points chart my progress in the game and if I'm neutralizing armour (and air) targets without getting points for it, then something isn't right.

The something that isn't right might be you then.

Tell me more, please?

You posts gives idea that your score-hungry loner => Un-cooperative and not a teamplayer-type.

'not giving points'-thing can be bad for enjoyment... But i didn't much care. Ofcourse i never truly enjoyed Arma MP.

Quote[/b] ]My problem is that I'm pretty sure a single AT-4 can take out a BMP, BRDM or Shilka and that's no longer the case in the game.

With this you would be pretty much wrong. You can get lucky, but don't count on it. You see: BMPs and such are NOT complitely packed with TNT. Think about just like in OFP or ArmA hit to cargospace's canvas of Ural or 5tn truck was enough to destory whole vehicle! Actaully you have to hit something critical, like crew members, ammo or fuel. And i'd say that the statistics you present of 1.14 seems to line up pretty well with real (average) possibilities of destroying certain vehicles.

[Heatseeker 0]

Your numbers dont match mine, in my earlier testing i killed a T72 with two M136's and a shilka with only 1, side hits.

The new armour values make the game much more playable, it was pointless using an APC that could be sniped by an M136 from 500+ meters away.

[Tankbuster 1747]

You posts gives idea that your score-hungry loner => Un-cooperative and not a teamplayer-type.

Gosh Mr Freud. It's like you were here in the room with me.

I play in a group of 5 or 6 players, we use teamspeak for comms and we play as a team. I'm not too good in aircraft so I tend to stick to ground roles. I'm by no means the worst or the best player in my group.

Oddly enough, now that in Dom3 I'm forced to use Javelin, my scores have gone up, but it's not just about attaining score. Yes, score is the measure of ones progress in the game, but it's not the sole object. I like to have a good score, of course, but at the end of the day, I'm playing a game with my mates and the fun derived from that is what it's all about.

I take your point about vehicles not being packed with explosive. But the vehicle explosion and fire is how the game chooses to show a killed vehicle and so that's what I want to achieve.

I think I know what you guys are saying. A bailed vehicle is as good as a burning one in terms of real warfare, but in the game it's still not dead unless it's alight.

@heatseeker. I can't reliably get hits at 500m with a 136! Maybe we're cutting to the chase here. I'd agree, killing APCs at half a kilometer with a little shoulder launched RPG isn't good, but is increasing their armour the best way to combat that? Giving the 136 less range would have been the way to go, surely?

Maybe I should just accept the game has changed? I liked being on the ground, mixing it in towns with a couple of 136's on my back knowing I could ruin armours day if needs be. It's hard to play like that now, because the 136 is so much weaker than before and I miss that.

[deady 0]

I used armour a lot. Although one shot doesn't blow up a vehicle now, it gets damaged beyond use. One shot wrecks the turret and usually makes it undriveable.

The only change was really to allow the occupants time to bail out.

[W0lle 1052]

There is a reason why we have a pinned feedback thread.

Closing.