Armor Warfare

[chappy 0]

On the tank aiming issue, a more realistic FCS *is* easier gameplay. Having to aim WWII style *is* tough as hell and more likely to waste ammo.

Why doesn't NWD work in multiplayer? Never checked how the mod works internally, but I suspect firing over large distances causes the same issues as when operating as a sniper against moving targets -- lag and update issues causing the target not to be where they are expected to be. If this is the case, the problem lies deeper within the ArmA engine than just the aiming procedure.

I don't see a problem of having to laze the target first before each shot to make the projectile automatically hit where the laser target was, without the need to do any reticle magic. But it doesn't guarantee a hit in ArmA because of its underlying long range issues.

NWDs mod worked very well in SP and could technically work in MP also. Lag etc wasnt an issue ever for me. The issue seemd to be recognising when to display the sights and FCS menus for the players in MP. Often if you died or dismounted or changed positions, when you go back to the gunner position the FCS mod was bugged out.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

I also think they should fix penetration values for the props: destroyed vehicles, trees, walls...etc.. they are all like depleted uranium currently...they stop SABOT like it was tin.

[oscar19681 0]

I really dont mind to much if armor warfare isnt that detailed in arma2 . Afterall the game is based on the marine force recon. I dont intend to climb in a tank every time i get the chance. Sure it would be nice if they improved it a bit when you do have to face tanks. But hey i got steel beasts pro and if you really want a sim that simulates all the systems of armor in detail greater than you can imagine then buy steel beasts pro! its not availible in stores and costs 125 us dollars. But hey look at the bright side its real militairy software in use by many armies aroud the world!

[7 0]

I really dont mind to much if armor warfare isnt that detailed in arma2 . Afterall the game is based on the marine force recon. I dont intend to climb in a tank every time i get the chance. Sure it would be nice if they improved it a bit when you do have to face tanks. But hey i got steel beasts pro and if you really want a sim that simulates all the systems of armor in detail greater than you can imagine then buy steel beasts pro! its not availible in stores and costs 125 us dollars. But hey look at the bright side its real militairy software in use by many armies aroud the world!

that is not a valid argument. try again.

[max power 21]

I really dont mind to much if armor warfare isnt that detailed in arma2 . Afterall the game is based on the marine force recon. I dont intend to climb in a tank every time i get the chance. Sure it would be nice if they improved it a bit when you do have to face tanks. But hey i got steel beasts pro and if you really want a sim that simulates all the systems of armor in detail greater than you can imagine then buy steel beasts pro! its not availible in stores and costs 125 us dollars. But hey look at the bright side its real militairy software in use by many armies aroud the world!

that is not a valid argument. try again.

Uhhh.. that's his opinion... not an argument against. Maybe you think his opinion isn't valid?

[7 0]

I really dont mind to much if armor warfare isnt that detailed in arma2 . Afterall the game is based on the marine force recon. I dont intend to climb in a tank every time i get the chance. Sure it would be nice if they improved it a bit when you do have to face tanks. But hey i got steel beasts pro and if you really want a sim that simulates all the systems of armor in detail greater than you can imagine then buy steel beasts pro! its not availible in stores and costs 125 us dollars. But hey look at the bright side its real militairy software in use by many armies aroud the world!

that is not a valid argument. try again.

Uhhh.. that's his opinion... not an argument against.  Maybe you think his opinion isn't valid?

My opinion is that his opinion presented in this thread is an argument. Hence why I'm treating it like one.

Really, we don't need someone to tell us "go buy x game instead, or join the real army" everytime someone suggests realism improvements in a certain area of the game. No one here was campaigning for a tank simulator, just improvements in armored warfare to bring it more in line with the overall simulation of this combat simulator.

[max power 21]

I really dont mind to much if armor warfare isnt that detailed in arma2 . Afterall the game is based on the marine force recon. I dont intend to climb in a tank every time i get the chance. Sure it would be nice if they improved it a bit when you do have to face tanks. But hey i got steel beasts pro and if you really want a sim that simulates all the systems of armor in detail greater than you can imagine then buy steel beasts pro! its not availible in stores and costs 125 us dollars. But hey look at the bright side its real militairy software in use by many armies aroud the world!

that is not a valid argument. try again.

Uhhh.. that's his opinion... not an argument against.  Maybe you think his opinion isn't valid?

My opinion is that his opinion presented in this thread is an argument. Hence why I'm treating it like one.

Really, we don't need someone to tell us "go buy x game instead, or join the real army" everytime someone suggests realism improvements in a certain area of the game. No one here was campaigning for a tank simulator, just improvements in armored warfare to bring it more in line with the overall simulation of this combat simulator.

Well sure, it all makes sense when you put words into his mouth.

He says, "I don't mind if ArmA2 doesn't have a super realistic tank simulator. BTW, check out Steel Beasts Pro, it's awesome". I'm not sure that's telling you to go join the real army.

You see the difference between his opinion and your 'opinion' is that he's saying what he likes and suggests something to try, and you're trying to convince me of something. If what he says is anything against the thread, the steel beasts thing may be mildly offtopic.

[7 0]

The quote hole is getting too big so I'll just leave it out. I never put words in his mouth. Where exactly did I say that he told us to go join the real army? I wasn't putting words in his mouth, I was just paraphrasing what people usually say in threads like this.

I'm done going off-topic now.

[The_Captain 0]

I would like to see a proper penetration/damage system in arma/arma2 that takes into account angle of shot, penetration power, penetration type, armor and relative thicknes, etc, and works for both heat-type missiles and kinetic rounds.

However, I don't take too much offense to the simplified way Arma & arma 2 have chosen to model damage. It works equally well for all types of entities (planes, helicopters, etc), and prevents problems in the simulation treating damage differently. Do we take armor thickness into account for tanks, but not planes? How about jeeps, or helicopters? The approach BIS uses is consistent, if not particularly detailed. If armored vehicles got an improved damage system, all aspects of the simulation would need a damage system with a similar level of detail and accuracy (as well as "similar to real life" results). I'm not saying that's not possible, but I understand why BIS took the approach they did.

As well, modern anti armor weapons are extremely lethal: if a dedicated anti armor weapon hits an AFV, it's probably going to die, if not necessarily catastrophically, almost every time. Now, improvements to an armor system would most likely affect combat cases 'at the margin': RPG rounds hitting the frontal armor of an M1, sabot rounds nicking the corner of a T72's tread, direct engine hits on an M1A1 with a powerful ATGM. Most combat occurrences, where AI or human gunners hit a relatively weak target with a powerful anti tank weapon directly in the center of mass, would probably result in a catastrophic kill in either the existing or an improved system. Arma 1 & 2 have very short engage ranges (and are poor at supporting armored comat beyond "battlesight" range anyway), which tends to decrease gunner reaction times and increase weapon lethality. At knife-fight ranges, I would argue that in most combat cases, both the current damage system and an improved one would result in the same "if you can see it, you can kill it" environment that we have now.

I think in a WW2 game, where weapons didn't generally outclass armor across the board, a proper penetration system would be much more important than in the modern combat we have.

My two cents.

[Rak 0]

They don't need to spread the new armor calculations across the game. I think everybody knows what will happen when a RPG or Sabot/HEAT round hits a helicopter, jeep, trucks and other "soft" targets.

But nobody can accurately predict what will happen when a Sabot/HEAT round, an RPG, or another AP round hits a Tank/APC. Hence the name "Armor Warfare".

I think the thoughts of "What will happen once I'm hit? Will the round penetrate through and kill my driver, kill us all, or hit the ammunition inside? Which side I'm being hit and by what? How do I keep my vulnerable sides from enemy?" rather than current "Good, we've taken one hit but my hitpoint so high I can take two more, no worries. Can I take 3 artillery shells you say? Charge!" will enchance the tactical side of gameplay. Heck, I'd say it'll be much much more fun. Also, when the modders take the flag from developers they can make it much more detailed.

Of course with %90 chance ArmA 2 won't have any improvement above ArmA in the Armored Warfare department. Just more models to play with.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

I think kids dont bother about a detailed armor/ballistics system..as all they know about that are hollywood movies explosions...

So for all of em I will give link.

Hollywood

[mr.g-c 6]

..... Arma 1 & 2 have very short engage ranges......

Insider Info?

Would be kind of bad if it remains that unrealistic in Arma2 and people have to wait for Mods like ACE again....

[Second 0]

Not again.

Some just please present me piece of AI code which understands to go for flanks.

[7 0]

Not again.      

Some just please present me piece of AI code which understands to go for flanks.

Present me a piece of AI code which understands attack helos hovering 3 km away destroying every vehicle in sight.

You can't? Oh, damn. Maybe we should remove attack helicopters from this game all together seeing as how AI doesn't know how to use them effectively.

[Second 0]

Not again.      

Some just please present me piece of AI code which understands to go for flanks.

Present me a piece of AI code which understands attack helos hovering 3 km away destroying every vehicle in sight.

You can't? Oh, damn. Maybe we should remove attack helicopters from this game all together seeing as how AI doesn't know how to use them effectively.

You indeed are just as downgraded as your posts seems to suggest.

Am i suggesting that tanks should be taken away? I make this clear to you: No. N-O.

And in slow manner; N ... do you follow me yet? .... O is NO. Lets try again shall we: N + O = NO

[7 0]

Not again.      

Some just please present me piece of AI code which understands to go for flanks.

Present me a piece of AI code which understands attack helos hovering 3 km away destroying every vehicle in sight.

You can't? Oh, damn. Maybe we should remove attack helicopters from this game all together seeing as how AI doesn't know how to use them effectively.

You indeed are just as downgraded as your posts seems to suggest.

Am i suggesting that tanks should be taken away? I make this clear to you: No. N-O.

And in slow manner; N ... do you follow me yet? .... O is NO. Lets try again shall we: N + O = NO  

Never said you suggest it. It was my suggestion. (;

[mr.g-c 6]

Some BIS responsible could look at this video for instance:

http://photos.dotd.com/keyword/grafenwoehr#246114563_EJti9

Awesome Tank gunnery...

[Alex72 1]

Vehicles i hope will not explode from MG fire in AA2. ACE managed to do it - so could BIS. It gets very monotone as well with things blowing up by every weapon and for every reason. Some just get disabled, some starts burning without explosion, some have a small explosion and some complete blowouts.

Come on BIS, you can do that.

/Alex

[Electricleash 133]

Quote[/b] ]Awesome Tank gunnery...

That video WAS awesome, it's crazy how the Ricochet seems faster than the original vectored shot.

I've never really got into the whole tank thing in ArmA, just not my bag, but I do enjoy coop where others are using them, particularly if they can provide me advancing cover. So I think improvements in this area could definately help.

[NoRailgunner 0]

I would like to see armored/light armored combats in which AI "knows" how to use proper tactics and use terrain/objects.

Vehicles generally shouldnt explode and burn like in most movies/series. But thats imo is "as good as usual selling argument" in entertainment/games development.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

OFP and default ArmA armored warfare has always seemed generally "correct enough", but once you been acquainted with armored warfare in a sim like World War II Online or, I imagine, Steel Beasts, you see that OFP/ArmA could be much, much better in this regard.

[dentist guba 0]

word war 2 online, a sim, ha ha ha.

[Baff1 0]

Compared to ArmA, BF2 is a tank sim.

[dentist guba 0]

yeah, it's so realistic with one man crewing an abrams

[Hellmaker 0]

I think much is also about the armoured tactics being used by the player. These has an overal infuence of the realism.

Modern tank warfare is not only about 15 tanks advancing on a line with constant fire. Much is sneaking with low silhouette in canyons, trying to flank your agressor.

Other part could be finding a good firing position in a dense forrest with good observation, frontal protection and line of fire.. Or advancing togehter with infantry on a street in a city providing support, feel the stress for mines and attack helicopters.

There are many aspects of moderns tanks warfare..