Carry 1 AT round vs 3 SMAW rounds

[StarSoft Cow 0]

I found that a character has 12 slots for equipment (ammo, satchels etc). When you carry the rocket launcher and then carry 2 round you lose all slots. So 1 round = 6 slots.

When you take the SMAW launcher you can suddenly carry 6 rounds. So 1 round takes 2 slots. Isn't this a bit wrong?

I remember the AT rounds were 3 slots in arma1. Not sure this is a bug or it is meant to be like this... I have no idea how it is in real life, but if i look at the rounds of the SMAW they look huge to carry around with.

[The Masta 0]

Was the launcher with 1 round = 6 slots the javelin or the Metis?.

Because those are one shot kill weapons when it come to destroying armor and the SMAW isn't.

[Dr.Pulp 0]

i think BIS did this to simulate that the M136 in RL is a one shot disposable rocket launcher.

[manzilla 1]

That's my thinking as well.

[StarSoft Cow 0]

That could be, but you can still carry 2 rockets if you don't need any other gear :)

And yes i was talking about the M136 (srry didnt know the name when i was writing the post :))

[Dr.Pulp 0]

thats fair....if you leave your gun at home...you can bring 2 M136 ;-)

[7 0]

It's weird because you don't actually STORE M136s in your vest/pouches. You sling 'em on your back, and you can still fill your vest/pouches to the limit. Maybe 1-shot disposable M136 that doesn't fill ammo slots for 1.03?

[Commando84 0]

a M9 and tons of At rounds is sometimes a nice idea but only during certain situations I've discovered in A1, see how it will work out in A2 :D

Handguns aren't the best weapons at long range.

[Placebo 28]

Either way it's not a troubleshooting issue.

[4 IN 1 0]

the utter-nonrealistic M136 is simply one of the thing i wanted it to be remove from the game. To make the rounds to take up 6 ammo space while it shouldnt as in real life is just stupid idea for me. Even if they make the ammo being hiden ammo class and not letting the luncher to reload will be OK.

[Daniel 0]

Agreed, the current method sounds really bad. You shouldn't lose ammo pouch space because the M136 is one shot. ArmA (and if I recall correctly OFP) has had better community made methods for ages.

[whisper 0]

Community made workaround have been made since OFP, better than this wrong workaround. We did it for example for OFrP back in the days.... *sigh*

C'mon BI, a lil work, it's not much to do :(

[Binkowski 25]

zGuba made an addon for ArmA which has been implemented into ACE regarding disposable launchers. Which is good, however I think BIS Should make the SMAW rounds take more space, they aren't the smallest rockets in the world.

[4 IN 1 0]

Well i wouldnt go all the way and say:

But if its not hard we would have done it a million years ago rgr?

[wipman 1]

Hi, the M136 AT4 rockets take 2 slots of the inventary in the ArmA, i had the hope that

they had made it a single round AT launcher, so you just take the weapon and that's all.

No rounds in the inventory because it isn't necessary; two different weapon pics and display

names, one loaded and other empty; i think that that would had been a great solution. Let's C ya

[Second 0]

I found that a character has 12 slots for equipment (ammo, satchels etc). When you carry the rocket launcher and then carry 2 round you lose all slots. So 1 round = 6 slots.

When you take the SMAW launcher you can suddenly carry 6 rounds. So 1 round takes 2 slots. Isn't this a bit wrong?

I remember the AT rounds were 3 slots in arma1. Not sure this is a bug or it is meant to be like this... I have no idea how it is in real life, but if i look at the rounds of the SMAW they look huge to carry around with.

Great example of how things gets screwed up when trying to "simulate" something. Probably not bug but feature... Majorly retarded one if one is interested of my opinion.

There should defindely be possiblity to carry two shots for M136 and reasonable amount of ammo for rifle. Yeah-yeah-yeah it weights. So does 6 belts of 5,56 ammo and SAW too, or freaking PKM or Barret... Or SMAW with few shots.

How about Russian/Soviet RPGs? Are they just as screwed up?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

It's not only about the weight. It's also about cumbersomeness. The M136 is a rather lightweight system. Carrying two M136 will reduce your combat effectiveness like you wouldn't believe (try lying down and crawl with two). I'm quite happy with one. If a true single shot launcher cannot be made, the 6 slot requirement is the best compromise to avoid being able to carry two on a regular basis.

The point is that I want to be able to let my regular squad members be able to defend themselves somehow against vehicles. At the same time I want my AT Specialist/Assaultman be the only one who can carry a multishot launcher (others can help carry ammo, no problem).

But I don't want to let every single player become rambo tank killers, like they are prone to in Arma1. Whatever system I tried to implement to prevent it, it was exploited east and west. Final solution was just to delete the tube from inventory once the tube was shot. But this has several problems when AI does it as the ACE implementation already has shown. So it still wasn't perfect for all situations, but it worked well for this particular mission.

Now people will have to think more when they gear up.

RPG7 is already multishot capable, so I expect it to work like it always have. AFAIK this only affects the M136.

[That guy 10]

does the RPG 18 act in the same fashion? 6 slot inventory?

It does come down to the mission maker when it comes to the distribution of AT weapons. add only a single of the multishot launchers, and several of the disposable.

Honestly there is only one drop and play multiplayer mission (missions like Evo Dom, warfare, etc, not the hardcore COOPs) for arma that did kit dirstibution well, and that was insurgency.

[Second 0]

It's not only about the weight. It's also about cumbersomeness. The M136 is a rather lightweight system. Carrying two M136 will reduce your combat effectiveness like you wouldn't believe (try lying down and crawl with two). I'm quite happy with one. If a true single shot launcher cannot be made, the 6 slot requirement is the best compromise to avoid being able to carry two on a regular basis.

You have any idea how cubersome SMAW is with like 3-6 shots? Or SAW with 1200 bullets, Barret with 120 shots? I dont' have factual knowledge for these weapons, but based on my Apilas+M72 vs 2xM72 combo and LMG experiences i'd say that M136 isn't that hard to be carried in multiple pieces. Reasons? Sling them to back and they are as much out of the way as possible, and their total weight isn't that bad.

This is where simulation part hits the fan. M136 isnt' what it is designed to be, light weight system which shouldn't stress rifleman's movement too much unlike heavier and bigger systems. Right now it is heavy weight system in ArmA2-universe, because it's single shot takes far too many slots limiting stuff guy can carry along with single M136. While SMAW is light weight system, which enables more shots and more equipment carried along it.

In MP this leads to fact that every guy hauls SMAW with loads of ammo along their rifle when ever they get change for it.

In same class we could but protective vests escpacely with bulletproof plate inserts. Those don't come with out weak points. Limits movement and stances. Problems being in prone position while maintaining high readiness to engage targets? Has been reported (hands and neck becoming soar even numb quite soon). Not wishing to go prone in the first place? Has been noticed and remarked. Bit like with every piece of equipment which limits agility/flexibility of upper body (Radio-equipments inserted on back into frame comes to mind). But this is already quite out of the topic.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

You have any idea how cubersome SMAW is with like 3-6 shots? Or SAW with 1200 bullets

That's why we have ammo carriers and assistants. No, not too frequently used in mainstream missions unfortunately. I totally agree that the M136 should be singleshot with no ammo. I would also like the SMAW rounds and MG/SAW boxes to take up some more space. That will come with ACE2 I guess, with a rucksack system which I can limit access to.

What I'm saying is that if that can't be done, then this is the only workaround to prevent spamming and let the AT Specialist/Assaultman have a purpose over the rest of the grunts. If I want everyone to become Rambo AT killers, then I'll just put a SMAW in their crate (using local to player crates), no big deal. But now it allows me to use the M136 as an emergency AT weapon instead of something that you fight of tons of tanks with.

In MP this leads to fact that every guy hauls SMAW with loads of ammo along their rifle when ever they get change for it.

Wrong if only the AT specialist/assaultman get to carry the SMAW. All the rest would have to sacrifice ammo to carry the M136. With the old system this became impossible.

If you carry only a single shot for the M136, you better make that one shot count, or you could be in trouble. Typical gameplay in Arma1 was this: Every man in the squad had M136 with at least 3 shots. How hard is it to kill off a vehicle at insane distances (even with proper ballistics featured from ACE) when you get so many chances?

Check out the series Generation Kill following some marine force recons. One M136 strapped to a vehicle for most of the time. Only brought out once. But never used (iirc). Mission design/criteria to blame? Yes, that too. But even when you modify the mission (Domination) to use a lot less armor to get it slightly more realistic, everyone complains when they no longer get to carry whatever they want. I have rather extreme limitations on what each slot can get.

Trust me when I say that simply limiting the ammunition or tubes doesn't work. Players have an extreme ability to find ways around it: Stealing tube from dead friendlies (same weapons to respawned player), obtaining ammo from respawned vehicles since they are hard to clear (processInitCommands is the only method that works in MP, but causes lag and is not reccommended).

I got tired of trying to fight exploiting players. I probably missed some methods, but all I tried would eventually fail.

does the RPG 18 act in the same fashion? 6 slot inventory?

I don't know this weapon, but if it is a single shot launcher I sure hope so.

It does come down to the mission maker when it comes to the distribution of AT weapons. add only a single of the multishot launchers, and several of the disposable.

Precicely. Mission designer now have more options to choose from, to generate limitations from.

Honestly there is only one drop and play multiplayer mission (missions like Evo Dom, warfare, etc, not the hardcore COOPs) for arma that did kit dirstibution well, and that was insurgency.

Correct. Although I just downloaded insurgency and never actually played it, it sadly seems to involve TvT only instead of coop. But I like what I see in there. I played some hardcore coops on Tactical Gaming as well, and there is usually no respawn in those. Meaning weapon distribution can be dictated to the point and doesn't cause the problems I've mentioned.

Edited June 4, 2009 by CarlGustaffa

[That guy 10]

insurgency is a COOP http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=71922

they way they limit the kits is nicely done, but is not as restrictive as being stuck with the class you started the match with, so it allows people to come and go with out destroying the game to much.

But from a different point of view, if in real life AT weapons were as plentiful and not encumbering as in ArmA im sure armies would give every joe an AT weapon as well.

People just adjust their tactics the world around them, and thus you have people sprinting around with M107s and Javelins

Edited June 4, 2009 by That guy

[Second 0]

That's why we have ammo carriers and assistants. No, not too frequently used in mainstream missions unfortunately. I totally agree that the M136 should be singleshot with no ammo. I would also like the SMAW rounds and MG/SAW boxes to take up some more space. That will come with ACE2 I guess, with a rucksack system which I can limit access to.

What I'm saying is that if that can't be done, then this is the only workaround to prevent spamming and let the AT Specialist/Assaultman have a purpose over the rest of the grunts. If I want everyone to become Rambo AT killers, then I'll just put a SMAW in their crate (using local to player crates), no big deal. But now it allows me to use the M136 as an emergency AT weapon instead of something that you fight of tons of tanks with.

Wrong if only the AT specialist/assaultman get to carry the SMAW. All the rest would have to sacrifice ammo to carry the M136. With the old system this became impossible.

If you carry only a single shot for the M136, you better make that one shot count, or you could be in trouble. Typical gameplay in Arma1 was this: Every man in the squad had M136 with at least 3 shots. How hard is it to kill off a vehicle at insane distances (even with proper ballistics featured from ACE) when you get so many chances?

Check out the series Generation Kill following some marine force recons. One M136 strapped to a vehicle for most of the time. Only brought out once. But never used (iirc). Mission design/criteria to blame? Yes, that too. But even when you modify the mission (Domination) to use a lot less armor to get it slightly more realistic, everyone complains when they no longer get to carry whatever they want. I have rather extreme limitations on what each slot can get.

Personally i'm not interested how they did it in Generation kill, i'm more interested on how I could do it, and i really don't see reason why i should settle just for one per my designated AT-guys in squad.

Are ramboing AT-guys with multiple M136 a problem? Well restrict their access to M136! it isn't harder than that.

[dreday 1]

insurgency is a COOP http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=71922

But from a different point of view, if in real life AT weapons were as plentiful and not encumbering as in ArmA im sure armies would give every joe an AT weapon as well.

That's pretty much the case with most of the mordern infantry forces; there is 1:1 ration between the number of squad members and the number of LAWs that are available to that squad...

Peace,

DreDay

Edited June 4, 2009 by DreDay

[CarlGustaffa 4]

insurgency is a COOP

Rgr. Sorry, I mixed up with Devastation. I uploaded Insurgency as well, but nobody had the map.

they way they limit the kits is nicely done, but is not as restrictive as being stuck with the class you started the match with, so it allows people to come and go with out destroying the game to much.

Rgr. With my method I based it fully on class/slot. It became too restrictive when the server wasn't populated. Kits are the way to go. But changing shouldn't come cheap, and there should be limits on how many kits of the same type you can have active simultaniously based on how populated the server is. Unfortunately, it's out of my coding abilities. Keep in mind, I was modding Domination to be more realistic, I was never capable of making all that on my own. And when I started, no other easy-to-read-and-understand dynamic coop missions were available.

But from a different point of view, if in real life AT weapons were as plentiful and not encumbering as in ArmA im sure armies would give every joe an AT weapon as well.

People just adjust their tactics the world around them, and thus you have people sprinting around with M107s and Javelins

I agree. The problem for us is that we are a very small 'clan'. Joining public servers playing Domination ruined all our attempts on working as a tight team. So I modded Domination to become a lot more easy (maybe one tank at a main target, we play only as infantry, and nothing heavy as rewards). Picking different roles gave us different kinds of equipment to play with, and gave different challenges. ACE gave us SMAW and MAAWS which was a dream come true. Finally I could use an EH-fired to remove the M136 tube after being fired for regular grunts, while the AT specialist had access to heavier stuff. But this technique doesn't work with AI enabled games.

We like having the server up for public play and only rarely do we have to kick anyone. Setting limits to what people can get, makes the rambo players leave quickly usually, because they want to 'snipe' or use Javelins to kill tanks :j:. This sniper wannabe would have been much more useful even in our own team as a rifleman covering a sector.

I like freedom, but for public gameplay, it only becomes messy and stupid.

Personally i'm not interested how they did it in Generation kill, i'm more interested on how I could do it, and i really don't see reason why i should settle just for one per my designated AT-guys in squad.

Because:

* Your combat effectiveness is heavily reduced while carrying two? See how many pictures you can find on images.google.com of two being common. If it was common, I wouldn't have a problem with two. But three? Five? C'mon. Btw, in my ACE version I let them choose between rucksack and M136 or two M136s with no rucksack. If I now have to lower the amount of AT firepower, no problem, I just lower the amount of armor threats.

* That's what the inventory list gives you in a real environment? In my unit we had two M72s (never to be carried by the same guy) and one MG3 (7.62 machinegun). Oh, and nobody of us ever saw a scope. Oh, not even the squad leader got his own binocular, only the platoon commander. NVGs? Forget it. Not even a grenadelauncher. Combat engineer platoon.

* You're supposed to be part of a unit? Share the load. If you have three M136s with you, let three guys carry one each. Much more realistic. In a typical 9 man infantry squad, you might have two guys carrying one M136 each. In an Arma1 army infantry squad, you commonly have 27 (3 each). I mean, wtf?

* The mission designer dictates the buildup of the squad. He might allow some adjustments, or me might have it fully locked down. All up to him. You can have one or two designated AT guys, but don't let them carry unrealistic amounts of firepower. If it doesn't suit you, you can mod the mission easily usually.

This naturally demands that the mission is also scaled to handle this, something that default Domination really isn't. When did you see 30 guys assault a target containing 6 MBTs, 4 Shilkas, 6 BMP 2s, 4 BRDMs +++? You get the picture. But it's no problem adjusting this either. Btw, I think the amount of tanks was because of stupid AI. I hope this isn't the case with Arma2, so maybe the armor threat can be reduced to sensible levels.

The so called hardcore missions (often no respawn, which I'm personally not a fan of) are usually pretty well tuned, but they also require a solid amount of players to cope with it. I get a machinegun with 2 mags, and a couple of smoke grenades and hand grenades? Fine. The mission provides me with an ammo bearer or two that can carry some addition rounds. 600 rounds fired. 7 kills. Top of the scoreboard. Supression all the way. And it worked. Good experience.

Restrictions work very well for public gameplay according to the fans of MOD PR in Battlefield. Why shouldn't such restrictions work well also in Arma2, if made right?

Are ramboing AT-guys with multiple M136 a problem? Well restrict their access to M136! it isn't harder than that.

They are a problem because restricting access to M136 is much harder than you'd expect. Read what I wrote earlier in the thread.

If you want multishot capability, pickup a SMAW.

If only M136 is available to you and you can only carry one round, it's because the designer wants to limit the amount of AT shooters. Deal with it. Spend time on logistics.

As they say: "Amateurs Talk Tactics, Professionals Talk Logistics" :p

There is so much talk about Arma being a simulator and not a game compared to the crappy competitors. Personally I see no evidence of this on the public games going on. The gameplay on public Arma servers are now usually worse than on Battlefield PR MOD servers from what I've heard/read. That's not a good sign. Mission design problem? Yes. That comes from lack of options in the engine. The new M136 system, although not perfect, helps designers counter it through new options. Imho.

Just my $25 :)

[Second 0]

Because:

* Your combat effectiveness is heavily reduced while carrying two? See how many pictures you can find on images.google.com of two being common. If it was common, I wouldn't have a problem with two. But three? Five? C'mon. Btw, in my ACE version I let them choose between rucksack and M136 or two M136s with no rucksack. If I now have to lower the amount of AT firepower, no problem, I just lower the amount of armor threats.

* That's what the inventory list gives you in a real environment? In my unit we had two M72s (never to be carried by the same guy) and one MG3 (7.62 machinegun). Oh, and nobody of us ever saw a scope. Oh, not even the squad leader got his own binocular, only the platoon commander. NVGs? Forget it. Not even a grenadelauncher. Combat engineer platoon.

* You're supposed to be part of a unit? Share the load. If you have three M136s with you, let three guys carry one each. Much more realistic. In a typical 9 man infantry squad, you might have two guys carrying one M136 each. In an Arma1 army infantry squad, you commonly have 27 (3 each). I mean, wtf?

* The mission designer dictates the buildup of the squad. He might allow some adjustments, or me might have it fully locked down. All up to him. You can have one or two designated AT guys, but don't let them carry unrealistic amounts of firepower. If it doesn't suit you, you can mod the mission easily usually.

Because they are not facing mechaniced enemy on their own. In my self got trained to be (also) AT-guy part of jaegerplatoon (light mobile infantry) while facing mechaniced or armored enemy. We by SOP are to face and fight directly also against armored vehicles. To us M136 would not be emergency weapon, but vital weapon which we would also use against armored vehicles mostly IFVs, but also against heavies. For heavier primary heavier weapons such as Apilas (in near future NLAW, or MBT-LAW) would be used.

AGAIN: I have hauled 9-12 kilograms worth of AT-equipment when i'm expected to keep up with riflesquads on offense as part of rifleplatoon, main job is to hunt down armored vehicles in killzone of platoon (mostly heavy tanks there). Also i have hauled 2 M72s as part of riflesquads AT-pair composing of two guys both having multiple M72s. Rest of squad is to fire at enemy infantry while we as pair seek ways to engage enemy armor (mostly IFVs) in area of our squads killzone.

Possible? Very much.

Fun? Not. With gasmask? not even closely being fun.

Necerssary? Very much indeed. What i haul is directly related to survival of rifleplatoon.

Why i did haul all the stuff while riflemen had only rifle? Because i along few others formed AT-fist of unit, riflemen were free to engage enemy riflemen when we were to given responsibility to take out armored vehicles. Typical example: Armored vehicles moving along open areas while riflemen tried to use forests (comming in from flanks), both needed to be repelled. So there is need for defender to be in two places. Equality is not tactics. Also in ArmA. I dont' know how many times i've used seperated AT-units to overwatch area which armored vehicles would use.

I'm not interested in ACE. I'm interested of how Vanilla ArmA2 works.

Anyways enough for my part: Haven't played the game, but i believe my points are quite clear. If they are not, then i don't care.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Second