BIS: It's already time to FIX the M136!!!

[ricnunes 0]

Like the subject says and anyone who have played ArmA2 even for a bit can realise that the M136 in ArmA2 is way UNDERpowered!

Gezzz, in ArmA2 even the RPG-18 is more effective against armour than the M136 -> For example the RPG-18 is able to destroy a BMP-3 with a single hit while the M136 can hardly "scratch a BMP-3 paint" with a single shot!

This is unbelievable and tottally unaceptable since anyone that knows the minimum about military affairs will know that in real life the M136 is way more effective than the RPG-18. For starters the M136 caliber is 84mm while the RPG-18 caliber is 64mm which is an excelent indication that the M136 is and should be in fact more powerfull than the RPG-18 which in ArmA2 it isn't (actually is the opposite). But here's some more "hard evidence":

-About the M136:

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl11-e.htm

-About the RPG-18:

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl38-e.htm

As you can see the M136 has an Armour penetration of more than 500mm (inferior but not by much compared to the 580-600mm armour penetration from the SMAW) while the RPG-18 as an Armour penetration 300mm.

BTW, the RPG-18 is nowadays considered an obsolete system while the M136 isn't.

So BIS, PLEASE FIX this!!

[Binkowski 26]

I have to agree.

[Windexglow 10]

Armchair generals ftw

[Pulverizer 1]

Cue for BIS apologists to tell you to learn how to mod the game to your liking :)

Seriously, it's probably some game balance thing. Like the Abrams going ka-boom after a few RPG-7s hit it.

[Flash Thunder 10]

I would gladly point out that all the over the shoulder launchers are royally screwed up in Arma2.

Either damage wise, reload time wise or inaccurate usage wise cough JAVELIN cough. ;)

[Beagle 684]

Yes ricnunes you are completly right!

The M136 should be definitly increased in power.

In fact there is no point to use it at this time.

This issue will becoem a big problem as soon as Operation Arrowhead is out, because the M136 will be the primary infantry AT Weapon of the US Army.

But, and here comes the problem with the game engine:

High powered shape charge Warheads do not perform well against light armoured vehicles as APCs and recon vehicles.

To reflect this, all light armoured vehicles in game have a "supernatural" high hitpoint score compared to MBTs.

In reality heavy mashineguns are more of a danger to light armoured vehicles as shaped charge warheads do.

The penetrator formed by a hollow charge will go right trough the whole vehicle without doing much damage to anythings that is not in its way.

This happened a few times in recent attacks.

At least the M136 can take any light armour in the game out of action...in fact you cant expect more...but it should be more much more effective against MBTs like T-72 and light tanks like T-34.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Beagle

[Rommel 2]

Three words. One awesome acronym.

ACE2

[Lal 10]

Armchair generals ftw

What's that supposed to mean? It's a simple balance request.

I agree wholeheartedly with it.

[Beagle 684]

Three words. One awesome acronym.

ACE2

No. ACE also does not anything right, it just overcomplicates things that are automized sinde the 80s to make the game harder, not more realistic.

ATGM autotracking for example...ACE2 just made them SACLOS like in the 70s.

[sickboy 13]

No. ACE also does not anything right, it just overcomplicates things that are automized sinde the 80s to make the game harder, not more realistic.

ATGM autotracking for example...ACE2 just made them SACLOS like in the 70s.

That's why it's called Work in Progress. The damage system already behaves better than the normal hitpoints, and it should only get better after this

(not sure what ATGM autotracking have to do with tank/apc shell/rocket/bullet damage simulation though :) Tracked through meta ticket, motivations are a bit the same as in this CIT Ticket though.)

However, reading "Balance request" above, I suppose ACE2 won't be the answer either in this case :)

Edited February 8, 2010 by Sickboy

[Lal 10]

I haven't tried ACE yet since I'm semi-new to the game so I won't comment on how it works, but I don't think basic stuff like buffing one launcher slightly(and perhaps making the RPG-18 weaker, I don't remember how it is atm) should require a user made mod, however good it may be.

[wamingo 1]

Why it takes 6 inventory slots is to me still the biggest puzzle.

[HyperU2 11]

I only find the M136 useful if I'm trying to damage a vehicle for possible capture. Sometimes in those cases I'm glad it's underpowered.

[NoRailgunner 0]

1. BIS still counts on the community to fix such military stuff - since 2001.

2. There are people who believe that such basic stuff should be fixed over and over again by community. Its must be very creative to fix stuff (for others) that should work from the start...

[Guest]

Give them a break everyone. If you knew half the amount of work they have to do you would not be so impatient. They already deliver you with one of the most advanced and complex games out there, with all the talented modders available, is it so hard to just mod a couple of launchers?

[Lal 10]

Give them a break everyone. If you knew half the amount of work they have to do you would not be so impatient. They already deliver you with one of the most advanced and complex games out there, with all the talented modders available, is it so hard to just mod a couple of launchers?

Well let's turn that question around, with the talented programmers who made the game available, is it so hard to just alter a couple of launchers?

I will admit that I really have no idea what amount of work it requires, but you make it seem as if it's somehow easy and a quick task for a modder, but hard and time consuming for BI programmer. Besides, it's a balance request, nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head and they're probably just glad people bring up things they can fix in upcoming patches. The fact that we buy the game and reccommend it to others is their reward.

[Guest]

The difference is, whilst BIS have to develop and produce an entire game and engine to all sorts of deadlines, a modder just has to sit down one night and give it a little tweak. Maybe not even one night, he could work on it over a period of time.

It's been almost a year since release now, BIS have been flat out patching more important issues and devloping OA and carrier command, hundreds of mods have been released, and not one modeer has adressed this little issue, instead everyone has just complained.

I don't mean to sound rude, I mean no disrespect, it's just people complain about this game so much, make all kinds of accusations, and have no idea what actually goes on behind the scenes. I used to complain myself, but now I have a much greater understanding of what goes on, I know it was wrong of me to make such complaints.

The guys at the studio are always working and trying to fix bugs and issues, but at the same time they have ALOT more to do then just what we want. We should all stop being so demanding and give them a little break!

[Lal 10]

I don't mean to sound rude, I mean no disrespect, it's just people complain about this game so much, make all kinds of accusations, and have no idea what actually goes on behind the scenes. I used to complain myself, but now I have a much greater understanding of what goes on, I know it was wrong of me to make such complaints.

The guys at the studio are always working and trying to fix bugs and issues, but at the same time they have ALOT more to do then just what we want. We should all stop being so demanding and give them a little break!

Well in regards to the rudeness part, no offense taken! And the same goes for me, I didn't mean to imply anything, I just really have no idea what stuff requires :)

I still stick with what I said about this being a suggestion though(and thus perhaps the biggest flaw of this thread is it not having been posted in the suggestion forum, since it's a balance suggestion of sorts) and I do think, and hope, they will read this thread as "Hey, great game! I just have a comment to make if you have the time to look at it" instead of "The M136 is utter shit! I HATE YOU, I HATE THIS GAME, GRRR". In essence I agree with you though, I guess it's just a matter of how we interpret complaints/suggestions in terms of how they affect BI.

EDIT: I guess this thread could have been rephrased a bit from "It's already time to FIX the M136!!!!" as that does indeed seem a bit whiny. I just hope they take it for what it is (a suggestion) and overlook the displeased tone.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Lal

[Guest]

Well in regards to the rudeness part, no offense taken! And the same goes for me, I didn't mean to imply anything, I just really have no idea what stuff requires :)

I still stick with what I said about this being a suggestion though(and thus perhaps the biggest flaw of this thread is it not having been posted in the suggestion forum, since it's a balance suggestion of sorts) and I do think, and hope, they will read this thread as "Hey, great game! I just have a comment to make if you have the time to look at it" instead of "The M136 is utter shit! I HATE YOU, I HATE THIS GAME, GRRR". In essence I agree with you though, I guess it's just a matter of how we interpret complaints/suggestions in terms of how they affect BI.

Yep I totally agree too :)

Reporting something you would like to see changed is great, it helps BIS get the job done better, and it improves the game :)

It's just the way we ask, and the things we say, that makes it come across wrong sometimes.

Richie.

[Beagle 684]

Why it takes 6 inventory slots is to me still the biggest puzzle.

Because its a non reloadable weapon...you are supposed to use it and throw it after the target when its empty.

[max power 21]

No. ACE also does not anything right, it just overcomplicates things that are automized sinde the 80s to make the game harder, not more realistic.

ATGM autotracking for example...ACE2 just made them SACLOS like in the 70s.

This.

1. BIS still counts on the community to fix such military stuff - since 2001.

2. There are people who believe that such basic stuff should be fixed over and over again by community. Its must be very creative to fix stuff (for others) that should work from the start...

We voluntarily make modifications to the original game, then suddenly make the logical leap that BIS 'counts' on us? How self important are we? BIS only counts on us to buy the game. Whatever we do with it afterwards, regardless of its flaws, as long as it doesn't violate the EULA, is our business.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Max Power

[NoRailgunner 0]

What if BIS weren't that clever to release tools, allowing to modify and keep on supporting from the first day? ;)

You see...

[Guest]

Regarding Ace mod however, I am wondering out of lack of knowledge, not out of complaint, how do you actually lock on to targets with things like sidewinders and Javelins?

It must be possible, but I just have no idea how. In real life a sidewinder locks on moderately easily, first you get a slow beeping noise, the faster it beeps the more lock you have, once the beeping has turned into one long "beeeeeeeep" you have full lock and can engage.

In the A-10 you must first arm the sidewinder, and switch to the correct hud mode, and a few other things, but in Ace I have no idea how to lock on.

Any advice? Or has it been removed all together?

[kklownboy 43]

What if BIS weren't that clever to release tools, allowing to modify and keep on supporting from the first day? ;)

You see...

we wouldnt buy the game. Whats the point?

But they did and do Thats the point. If you want vanilla A2 to be more of what you want,submit your ticket. But for me i like the extras that Mods have and use AT4s to disable T90s and BMP3s in the editor if you hit them right;kill EVERYTIME. But under gaming conditions/stress of death, its hard to get the hit right and they just keep on rolling...

[ricnunes 0]

richiespeed13,

What I'm asking here definitly isn't complicated and shoudn't take BIS a "long time" and "resources" since like you said this can be "easily" modded! The problem with mods is in the MULTIPLAYER part (which is where I personally spend more than 95% of my ArmA2 playing time) in where there are many servers that simply don't accept any mods or only accept some mods and not to mention that some mods aren't even compatible with multiplayer or at best requires the server to have it as well or else it will crash those servers - If I'm not mistaken mods that may provoke this, includes mods that tampers with weapons effectiveness and a mod that makes the M136 more powerfull would certainly fit in this category!

Anyway this issue seems IMO to definitly be a BUG (or BIS being missinformed) since as you can read in my first post that the M136 is in REAL life much more powerfull than for example the RPG-18 (also modeled in ArmA2) but in Arma2 is exactly the opposite where with ONE RPG-18 you can and will destroy a BMP-3 while with ONE M136 you can HARDLY make ANY damage against the same BMP-3! Besides in Armed Assault the M136 was much more powerfull than in ArmA2 (the M136 in Armed Assault did a similar amount of damage as the SMAW currently does in ArmA2) and it's "our job" as costumers to report and even "demand" that developers (in this case BIS) solve our game's bugs since afterall they (the game devs like BIS) live with our money.

Never said that this wasn't a great and awesome and best game of the genre but by the contrary, I agree that ArmA2 is the best game of the genre (BY FAR!!) but this doesn't mean that I will or should stop reporting bugs and stop asking BIS for fix them!

The current problem with the M136 in ArmA2 is that it's not only UNREALISTIC but also there's NO point in carrying one when you have the SMAW in ArmA2. So this is not only a REALISM problem but also a GAMEPLAY/BALANCE one as well!

Resuming, solving this problem should be extremelly EASY for BIS - All they need to do is to incress the damage value of the M136 in order to be considerably superior to the RPG-18 but a bit inferior to the SMAW and "voilá" - You'll have a more realistic "performing" M136!

Also and please don't get me wrong, but it's people like me that complain about the ArmA's bugs and even demands that BIS fix them that makes this game better and better as time passes by and NOT people like you that always says that everything is "OK" because it's an already great game - If it was for people like you we would still be in version 1.0 of ArmA2 (and with an extremelly LONG list of bugs unsolved)...

Regarding ACE2 don't get me wrong but it simply is NOT "my cup of tea" (for a number of reasons that doesn't have anything to do with this thread).