Strike_NOR

Nice to see you guys joining forces. Would definitely suit IFA to have some death screams and hit pain sounds. It makes the whole experience more immersive. After all. War is hell.

Okay. Having spent the last couple of hours testing the following HEAT weapons in ArmA3: PCML (shot shell/projectile mechanic) MAAWS (indirectHit) RPG-42 (indirectHit) RPG-7 (indirectHit) Vorona (indirectHit) I have come to the conclusion that I have to make a dedicated thread for this. It is taking up too much space in the general discussion topic, and tbh if the devs are going to fix this, they better discuss the damage calculation system in a dedicated thread. I have to prepare that thread (not today) as I have to filter through a bunch of screenshots and raw data capture in order to present something that is easy to understand and sensible to use as data towards "fixing" the damage mechanics in ArmA 3. As for the recent tests with HEAT listed above^^: Varsuk target, RH side ERA panels cancel ALL of the attacks from indirectHit type weapons were canceled out completely (0 damage). The PCML punches through in Direct Attack (unrealistic - because warhead should face down, not forwards). The rest of the attacks deal full damage potential, RPG lowest at ~.10 damage - Vorona highest at ~.32 damage REGARDLESS of impact angle or area. If they hit, they deal full damage to hull. The PCML is the only missile that gives variable results with different angles and hit locations, because it fires a projectile. Alas, this projectile suffers the same discrepancies as the rest of the armor piercing projectiles in ArmA. Sometimes they deal full damage on impact (no penetration), and other times they pass through the crew compartment without hurting anything. I will post a new thread for this issue when I have the time. Out

Yeah they fit. AFAIK two Nyx tanks would weigh about 6-7 tons total, contrary to a singular AMV-7 Marshall that weighs at least 16 tons - so there shouldn't be any conflict with the Blackfish Maximum Takeoff Weight. Would be cool to airdrop two of those badboys into action :) @wattywatts Again, thanks for entering discussion and sharing some of your thoughts. The idea of top-attack is indeed true, most modern combat vehicles sacrifice top armor thickness to save weight, and distribute that weight to the front and sides where they are most likely to be attacked from. The top-attack missiles exploit this, and as you say: you need a lot smaller shaped charge in order to punch through the ceiling, than if hitting from the sides. The Vorona (Metis-M copy) has a very capable tandem HEAT setup, that allegedly can penetrate about 800-950mm of RHA, I could not find any info on the Titan AT, because it seems the real-life counterpart is the "Mini-Spike" personal guided missile launcher that was discontinued in 2016. As far as I can tell, the mini-spike was only intended for Anti-Personnel and entrenched enemy infantry (entire missile weighs 4 kg). However, its bigger brother, the Spike ATGM (13kg), has a tandem HEAT setup, probably similar to that of the Metis-M1 (13.8kg). Okay, details details. My point about "is the Titan AT loadout overpowered" is now void. The Mini-Spike is so light, the gunner could carry two spare missiles, and the ammo assistant could carry another 4. Now for damage potential, and game balance: Let's pretend the Titan-AT has a singular HEAT warhead equivalent to that of a good old RPG-7VL (2.6kg rocket). That should give comparable results to the RPG-7VL penetration, which is about 500mm RHA. First of all: This missile is now useless against ERA. If the Titan AT happens to hit ERA, then it's like flinging peanuts at an elephant. However, if you hit something in Direct attack mode, well then the armor has to be <500mm RHA equivalent in order to penetrate - give or take angle of impact and effective armor thickness etc. In other words, you HAVE to hit something weak, and unprotected by ERA in order to successfully penetrate and inflict damage. Ok great! That's good. As of now, all HEAT weapons except the PCML use splash-damage to mimic HEAT behavior, but it's far from realistic. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I hope you find a way to implement the shaped charge jet in form of a submunition "projectile". This submunition projectile will always spawn with top speed (penetration capability) regardless of distance from shooter to target. An APFSDS round on the other hand will always lose Kinetic Energy, and therefore lose penetration with range. The HEAT does not. I realize it doesn't matter if you use indirectHit splashdamage or a submunition projectile in terms of range to target (the indirectHit will still do full damage regardless of shot velocity?), but the stuff that goes on AFTER impact is what is drastically different. Right now, if the Titan-AT uses indirectHit damage, it will wreck all kinds of stuff nearby the surface of the vehicle, dealing some factor damage to crew and vehicle global health. However, if you manage to pull off a shaped charge jet simulation, then the missile "turns into a projectile shot" at the very last moment. This projectile has the potential to penetrate, or not (causing zero damage if it stops). If it does penetrate it will travel through the vehicle (like a real shaped charge jet) and hit individual firegeometry (modules) and crew (taking out perhaps 1 member, instead of equally damaging everyone a little). It would make the whole experience feel more realistic, and also balance it against other weapon types. The MAAWS 84mm tandem HEAT round should be able to punch through at least 500mm RHA, but defeat ERA in the same shot. This makes it a better weapon than the RPG-7 with single heat warhead. However, it can not reach the top of the turret like the Mini-Spike can, so it is weaker in terms of fighting main battle tanks. The Vorona uses a powerful Tandem HEAT round that can trigger ERA and then punch through 950mm RHA, making it lethal against any MBT, even with ERA panels equipped. If you had shaped charge jet simulations with this weapon, it would be extremely deadly as you could carefully "snipe" the crew or vital modules with the manually guided missile. It would balance itself by having to always guide it (expose yourself) and not be able to carry much ammo for it. The PCML uses a downward facing HEAT charge that is set to detonate above the target in Overfly Top-Attack mode (As it already does perfectly in ArmA3 - this one is epic). It then punches through unprotected armor in the thinnest parts (top) and can strike individual modules and crew inside the tank. This weapon is currently the best representation you have of HEAT in ArmA3. Period. If the rest would only follow with the same submunition mechanic, oh I would be so happy! Basically it comes down to the following: Titan AP should be potent against infantry and unarmored vehicles. Titan AT should be potent against infantry (close range), unarmored vehicles, AFV/APCs, IFV's (weak spots) and Tanks. ERA panels will defeat this missile in any situation. Vorona should be the omnipotent juggernaut that can deal with the heaviest of the heaviest. Stationary targets beware, this is a true tank sniper. (Defeats MBT armor on perpendicular angles - slightly weakened by ERA). PCML should be "as is" pretty much. Maybe consider how much damage the shaped charge does once the rest of the weapons are balanced. Oh, and technically speaking it should have 0 armor penetrating capabilities in Direct Attack mode. RPG-7 should be equivalent to Titan AT in terms of pen, but absolutely useless against SLAT armor. Could use additional rocket types such as the 40mm HE variant (OG-7V) for infantry/unarmored vehicles and the PG-7VR (tandem HEAT) to deal with ERA equipped tanks). Should be effective against MBT's without ERA, and slightly weakened when ERA is present.) MAAWS should be about as effective as RPG-7, but easier to use (optics - laser rangefinder). "The gentleman's RPG-7". Also a wide variety of ammunition available for the real thing. Ranked by lethality (according to my guesstimations - most lethal at top) : CSAT access to an "infantry variant" of the Rhino TD. The Vorona. All factions enjoy the Titan missile system. NATO and AAF have the NLAW which has guidance and top-down attack. NATO and AAF enjoy the MAAWS - while the CSAT enjoy the RPG-42. Both sport the HE and Tandem HEAT rounds. AAF use simple optics (mod 0) so slight accuracy disadvantage there. RPG-7 currently sported by Syndikat. Only has 1 warhead (PG-7VM that actually has ~300 mm RHA pen). Just by these observations, we have various uses and applications. Seemingly balanced. Of course, this doesn't take into consideration the vehicle mounted weapons and mines that also sport HEAT warheads. A macer (Maverick ATGM) has a considerably larger HEAT warhead and should be able to defeat almost anything with 1 shot. Same goes for the Scalpel (Hellfire) and other equivalent types. Anyways, post reaching critical size. Very curious about what will be done to the damage mechanics before finalizing the DLC. Very curious to what can be done post-DLC too :) Very happy none the less. Looks like it is shaping up to be a great DLC. This HEAT "emulation" with indirectHit is just one of my pet peeves. Hence I am campaigning pretty strongly to improve that mechanic :) Good luck finalizing DLC :)

Thanks! I am happy to hear that because the differences at the moment appear insignificant. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your design choices. I agree with your points, while technically the Titan is a passive seeker, and should not reveal its position - it may be a gameplay necessary compromise to give tanks a chance. Any beamrider or laser spot tracker should on the other hand be detectable as these emit energy. Copy that. 2x Oops. Thanks for specifying that :) Maybe I confused the Vorona with MAAWS (light AT) not having assistant? Or im wrong again. :p

To me there is something really wrong here that needs to be revisited. The Metis-M (which Vorona is based on) is a heavy AT system that is designed to be launched from a tripod/platform. A typical team consists of two soldiers, one carrying the platform and launcher+launch control unit, the other carrying additional two launchers for a total of three missiles. In the current devbranch version, I couldn't see a heavy AT assistant/ammo carrier, which is strange. The current heavy AT soldier has two launchers instead of 1 + tripod, which is OK I guess. However, he should get an assistant to carry more ammo. What is so utterly strange is that the more advanced, top attack sporting titan AT seems super lightweight. The AT soldier has a whopping 3 missiles at his disposal. Two AT missiles and one HE/Frag. If we compare both missiles, the Vorona and Titan AT both have dual HEAT warheads (tandem), but the Vorona is at a huge disadvantage of not being able to perform top attack. This means that the Titan AT is theoretically better at defeating armor, and has 1 extra slot for ammo compared to Vorona. Now since HEAT doesn't act like real life in ArmA, this can be compensated by giving different splashdamage values to artificially balance the weapons. But I haven't looked under the hood at these values yet. My point is: Why chose vorona, if CSAT already has Titan AT? Why not add Vorona ammo assistant? Why not add Vorona AP (He/frag thermobaric) ammo alternative? Why not add a Static Vorona launcher? Is the Titan loadout overpowered? If HEAT shaped charge jets were simulated, these weapons would better balance in accordance to their RL counterparts.

I have to say that I was also surprised to find out that the commander could not use FFV - at first.... Then it struck me. Who in gods earth would ever opt to use their rifle or binocular from the exposed turret hatch, when you can safely hide inside the steel beast and use way more powerful armament and optics. It does not make any sense at all. The only scenario I can imagine you would want to turn out is to get a better all-around view when maneuvering in tight spaces - outside of combat. Besides that, maybe if you are forced to abandon your vehicle in combat, and face close enemies while climbing out of the hatch - which rarely happens and is not needed in arma since "get out" skips the process of climbing out alltogether and just plops you down next to the vehicle. For modders, however, it makes perfect sense if you are using older equipment. Pre-modern conflicts didn't see the likes of RCWS or highly advanced optics, therefore turning out to use binocs or grabbing your M3 greasegun trying to mow down incoming sappers or Anti-tank grenadiers are daily work duties. :)

Yes. The PCML used to work in dumbfire, but with recent patches and improvements it now acts as a purely guided missile. The real thing actually works slightly differently, an inbetween solution. Unguided, but course corrected for target range and angular rate of change. Like a FCS ballistics computer. Anyways, it may be wise to change the crosshair/optic to something different that doesn't suggest manual ranging, or revisit the missile trajectory in dumbfire. I experienced the exact same issue as you.

Hi. I'm sure you have noticed my addiction to HEAT simulation by now. I apologize my persistence, but could any of you working on the missile guidance/weapon improvements shed any light on the following question: What benefit does the top-attack currently have over direct-attack in the game - per todays devbranch version? (all except the PCML which uses projectile) I'd like to know not from the obvious real-life hypothetical benefit, but actual ingame-mechanics benefit! If I were to make an educated guess, I would say that: The top-attack "bypasses" the side-mounted ERA panels. (Meaning they have no effect against top-attacks) The indirectHit calculation occurs closer to the targets center, meaning it reaches further into the geometry to deal splash damage to things. But besides that, absolutely nothing? I want to know, because I am really curious as to why such a feature is introduced, if the difference between top-attack and direct-attack are so seemingly insignificant? I bet you can see where I am going with this (moar simulated HEAT shaped charge jets pls).

Great news :) Thanks for the heads up! Have a splendid™ weekend (soon™)

So I got the time to play around with the new assets a little bit yesterday, and thought that I'd share my observations with you. Let's start with the good stuff: The vehicles: The new vehicles are a great addition to the game. While I was expecting 3 new MBT's, I must say that I am actually positively surprised to find out that there was 1 MBT, and two other armored fighting vehicle classes. In addition to these "main content" vehicles, I was also pleasantly surprised to discover the introduction of new light-AT, Heavy AT and vehicle-mounted AT weapons that actually turns out was on my wish-list! The introduction of FIA vehicle mounted AT weapons was an absolute must, and a wise decision IMHO. It is also immediately obvious, that the quality of the interiors of these new vehicles are a step up from the recently updated interiors for older vehicles. It is easy to see that these new assets were designed from the ground up with interiors in mind, and therefore they feel more cramped, but also connected to the rest of the crew. The details are very good inside the vehicles, and I enjoyed sitting there for a while and just looking around at the work that has been put into them! I think it is very cool that you decided to introduce an advanced MBT, a Tank Destroyer and a Light Recon/support vehicle. The Nyx is very interesting to me, as it is an extremely light vehicle, and will most likely succeed in scenarios where they can outmaneuver the enemy, and get into close quarters battles with them. The Nyx would easily do the infamous "circle of death" maneuver around enemy tanks, because it is so nimble. The rapid fire, two-punch combo with the FireFIST (javelin) missiles are actually quite potent too for pop-up attacks from behind cover. A neat little thing. Absolutely fantastic that you made new AT jeeps/trucks. Very insurgent/FIA feel and finally brings a formidable sneaky attack vehicle to the poor man's army. I'm glad you chose to include these. The launchers: The new MAAWS (Carl Gustav) launcher is very nice. Finally a NATO/AAF counterpart to the RPG alamut of CSAT. The sound needs to be more beefy though when firing, as it should sound more like a cannon rather than a potato-gun. I totally dig the CSAT Heavy-AT (Metis-M) launcher is extremely cool, and fun to use. I love the detailed missile with the tracer attached to the fin, causing it to be very visible and easy to track towards the target! A great new asset and force to be reckoned with! The features: While the armor component system, missile flight paths and attack modes, physX improvements, FCS enhancements and such are great additions that give the game more flavor, there are some things I expected that I feel was overlooked. I'll break it down into a few paragraphs. Armor Component system/Enhanced damage While new armor components and weapon types (rock paper scissors) are a great addition, the fundamental way of how these work, and how these interact with armored vehicles is still somewhat flawed. Yes, they increase possibilities of armor types and weapon types, but they feel very bland to me due to the way the game handles it. To clarify: AP ammunition (projectile type) seems to work very well (in fact, better than any other games that are comparable to ArmA). There is a armor simulation, penetration, internal ricochets, modules, crew and all that can be damaged. And for the most part, this system is quite accurate to real life! The thing that doesn't remotely work like real life, is HEAT weapons. I was expecting a small revolution in the way HEAT is handled in ArmA3 with Tanks DLC, but I am disappointed to learn that only the PCML comes close to resembling actual HEAT weaponry. The HEAT warhead, is not a "splash damage/Area effect" weapon against armor. It is a "needle", designed to pierce the extremely tough armor of a tank and reach the soft/sensitive internals to destroy them. For some reason, all HEAT weapons in ArmA, except for the PCML, use this high-explosive indirect hit damage, which frequently causes absurd splash-damage in a large area around the impact. The PCML, however, spawns a submunition of projectile type, that penetrates armor in a "line" and even has the chance to not penetrate (if the angle is too high, or armor too thick) - just like a standard AP projectile. This is a very good, realistic and gameplay-wise mechanic that better portrays the role and purpose of the HEAT warhead. So right now I am left feeling: "Well, they did manage to make realistic HEAT with the PCML, so why isn't it on the: RPG's, SPG's, HEAT-MP tank rounds, Titan AT's, MAAWS, FireFIST, Macers, Scalpels etc etc etc.....". IMHO, for consistency, you should have submunitions created on all of the aforementioned warheads, that spawn a projectile with high velocity at the point of impact, that travels in the direction the HEAT warhead was facing. This AP projectile would simulate the HEAT shaped charge jet, just like on the PCML. This leads to less "splash damage" all around the vehicle, and more "puncture damage" in the path of the penetrating projectile. I hope you keep the PCML mechanic, because it is absolutely fantastic, and copy the submunition mechanic to ALL other weapons that use HEAT warheads. Of course, the PCML "detects" a target at a distance and knows when to detonate due to that, but a normal impact-fuze HEAT weapon does not and must spawn the submunition much closer to the target. In theory, to me, it sounds possible to make the weapons this way. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe it is a weird design choice to not overhaul the HEAT weapons for Tanks DLC. Right now HEAT is just a HE weapon with increased effect towards armor (and everything else in it's indirectHit range). For instance, I shot 1 SPG HEAT round at the large office building (two floors), and it was so damaged it turned into the damaged state (walls crumbled and all). This is not very accurate, as the HEAT warhead would detonate on impact, sending a HEAT jet through the building, but not really damaging the whole thing. I imagine this comes from a relatively high IndirectHit damage value that is meant to destroy tanks, don't know if I'm correct, but it seems that way. Either way, a solution to create a realistic HEAT weapon is to do what you have done with the PCML, but if possible, make the initial weapon (missile/rocket) explode in a small/medium HE charge (equivalent to a powerful frag grenade), and simultaneously create the submunition as a pure "projectile" shot, preferably with a link to the ERA armor component (ERA is designed to defeat the HEAT jet, not the missile/rocket/shell itself). This way an attack with HEAT will: Deal HE/Frag (indirectHit) damage to light vehicles and infantry (but not armor) (Multi-purpose effect) Deal AP (projectile) damage to light and heavy vehicles (reach stuff behind armor) The second thing is HEAT vs SLAT. If possible, SLAT component should recognize the missile/rocket/shell as a HEAT "carrier", and when a hit from this "carrier" is detected by a SLAT armor piece, it should cancel the spawning of the AP projectile (HEAT jet). The HE charge should still occur (to damage infantry and light vehicles), but the AP jet should be prevented (to simulate the SLAT armor disabling the weapon so the HEAT jet doesn't form). This way, the HE charge will damage the SLAT, but the AP round will not form and hence, the armor-penetrating capabilities is lost. I know I am offering solutions and suggestions at a game-design level, and I'm sorry to say I can't contribute with a solution in programming language. But I do believe this overhaul of the HEAT weapons will be backwards compatible will all Vanilla content, and hopefully be made in a way that can easily be adapted by modders. All indirectHit HEAT weapons would still work as today, but the new HEAT system would function more like an AP round (as it should) and yield more believable results. Right now I feel all the AT missiles, shells and rockets do is just damage stuff that is close to the vehicle surface/exterior (tracks, turrets etc), while I am expecting them to damage internals and crew. No. I am not a fan of the archaic indirectHit HEAT compromise. It also makes Top-attack and Direct attack a purely visual effect gimmick with no real purpose. Games like battlefield cheat by giving a missile in top-attack mode a damage multiplier, while ArmA has the potential to simulate the difference due to actual circumstances such as impact angle, and armor thickness. I don't care if it's not ready for the DLC release, but I do hope you find time to overhaul this properly, like you kindof have with the PCML, since you now have more "toys" to play with (armor components, missile flight paths). Rant over. Yes I am passionate and proud of it. Peace out!

Having stood 3 meters from the real thing in real life, I can vouch for that. It really sounds like a cannon when firing, with a very deep shock/boom that can be heard/felt for several 100 meters away. On a side note, the training round we used had 7.62x51mm tracer :), didn't sound as meaty as the 20mm :p But yeah, it is seriously under-represented in game now and sounds nothing like the real deal :) Sounds like a grenade launcher at the moment.

On my end it is. It is physically attached to the fin that has the tracer "container" 3d model. Maybe it randomly glitches then?

As far as i know, this is to make the missile more visible to the operator so you can better guide it. A nice and realistic touch

Sigh.... well there goes my evening

Well guys, it's been fun, but we are way off topic :) This ammunition capacity debate is better suited for the "General Discussion" section, or as a new thread in the devbranch forum. It is indeed, an important subject, and I agree completely that the ammunition capacity must increase to a sweet spot where realism meets ArmA functionality. A decent way of balancing this is to introduce some long reload times to ammo boxes. Also, like @x3kj has pointed out, the ArmA3 logistics system is currently kinda unpolished. I have only used the supply vehicles in any of my scenarios or missions for either: Target practice Convoys (where they only play a role as high value targets) FARP (Forward Arming Refueling Point) for helicopters. I never use them to actively move a resource from point A to B, in order to keep B combat-effective (which is kind of what logistics is all about or?) And maybe this is due to their lack of significance in a gameplay-wise way. I wish this was looked into further. However, has anyone noticed any bugs with the FCS lasing in recent devbranch builds? After the component armor system was introduced, I get very strange behavior where initially, the FCS will retrieve range and speed of a target, but after a few attempts, the FCS suddenly glitches and does not detect the vehicle(s) in my crosshairs at all. It keeps getting me the background range and speed (0). If I restart the scenario, it works again, but only for the first few "lase" attempts. Tested in VR map only, on both stationary and moving targets, with different FCS equipped vehicles.

Also, considering the work and research @Damian90 has obviously went trough on the topic, I am sure we can trust his suggestions are true to life, at least as far as unclassified information goes :) Tell me, are you RHS dev Damian? Would be surprised if not... I find that the Marshall, gorgon and BTR Kamysh all run out of AP ammo WAY too fast in vanilla ArmA 3. 60 rounds is just nothing. I could easily see an increase like Damian suggests, but there should be some authentic or realistic reload times for these magazines. I am unaware how the ammunition is stored. If it's stored freely, then each round probably has to be manually fed into a feeding system/magazine - which can take several minutes. If they are stored in "clips" though, (like the WW2 40mm bofors could do), then reloading may be shortened significantly. Belted ammo may also reduce reload time, especially if there is an automatic feed system (meaning the crew only has to guide the belt so it doesn't catch something inside the vehicle). I really don't know exactly how one goes about reloading the turret in said vehicles, but I do know that it most likely is not done in the heat of the combat, which means you have to withdraw temporarily in order to rearm the turret.

Nice! Thanks to @mondkalb for pointing that out :) Glad to hear it's being looked at, hopefully you'll find some time to tweak these for more consistent performance. It seems these high deflection angles are the root cause of many incidents where the vehicle takes unnatural amounts of damage, while sparing the crew. While realistically, this should be opposite and the crew suffers damage, while the tank persists. If the shot goes more straight through the vehicle, it is more likely to hit the crew on the way, while it is less likely to hit other "invisible" walls inside the tank (that cause full damage multiple times.)

Afaik, you hit ESC and select the Splendid camera (screenshot simulator) and use this camera to move around. Once you have moved the camera to a good spot, you simply use the mouse to hover over the impact point you want detailed DIAG info on. It should indicate by the small cross changing color and a red ring appearing around it. I think devs already said (or maybe @x3kj) that indirect damage ignores object occlusion for own vehicle. In other words, if the indirect HE damage hits one side, then the vehicle itself will not mask the opposite ERA panels, and hence they explode. I think the ammunition is not simulated(yet?). And what you are experiencing is purely luck. (Do not think there are any relations between vehicle ammo count and hitpoint/firegeometry). This has always been the case AFAIK. However, due to the weird ricochet nature inside tanks, the shells often dip down before even reaching the crew - leading to rare crew kills. What would help though, is if the crew suffered "spalling" damage, even if the main projectile doesn't exactly hit the crew. Well... should it not be? I mean it's just a large ball bearing isn't it? 30mm APFSDS is quite potent towards softer armor, and besides, striking the turret ring isn't exactly easy with the 30mm dispersion. Yeah, this should be addressed!

Tunnelvision is one of the major things untrained combatants suffer from. It can be towards an active threat (incoming fire, or advancing enemies), a point of interest (enemy position, vehicle, patrol squad) or while focusing/aiming at something. One of the first things I was trained to do after firing at my target, is to scan left and right briefly before lowering my gun/self to see if there are more targets nearby. When reloading becomes automatic (you can do it without looking at your hands/weapon) you spend that time crouched (preferably behind cover) and look wide left and right to sustain situational awareness. This way, you keep tabs on your squad, look out for threats and especially flanking maneuvers. To draw this into ArmA AI, would in my opinion manifest in the form of narrowing the AI viewcone (scan) during engagements, and minimizing it further while firing, simulating the AI focusing. Anything outside the "focus" zone becomes increasingly more difficult to spot. As the time passes, the AI should gradually unfocus, and start getting a better peripheral view again. The rate at which focusing and unfocusing happens, as well as the amount of time spent in "focused" mode should all tie into AI skill level. Poorly skilled AI focus slowly, and remain focused long after losing line of sight to the target (ignoring everything else). When finally snapping out of focus mode, they unfocus slowly again. This means that from the point of contact with enemy, they will struggle to accurately search for and find them, and once they do, they will not let sight of that enemy for a while. At this point they have tunnelvision and are unaware of other things happening outside the focused zone. They are basically "camping" the last known position of the enemy, instead of checking for other threats or relocating, making them vulnerable to flanking attacks. It would be nice if AI had some delay to certain things. Such as reporting contacts. A low-skill AI that happens to spot you at long distance, may halt and stare for a while, before reporting it to his group. This means that you can tell when you have been made, and react before the entire enemy squad opens up on you. There should be some delay to registering dead teammates in the same vehicle, like if turned out (or in) AI crew was killed. The rest of the crew would, depending on skill level, need a moment to react to the event and turn back in. Perhaps this "delay" could be influenced by combat mode? "Safe" gives AI a delay increase (to simulate element of surprise), while "aware" and "combat" give decreased reaction time. Same for registering when crew has turned in or out. Like others have mentioned, the AI seems to know instantly when crew turns in/out. This means turning out in the battlefield will get you killed instantly. Tried in vanilla, IFA and RHS. The AI, should need some time to register that you have exposed yourself, before taking shots at you. Reloading could also be tied into this. Skilled AI recognize ammo count and reload when magazine has less than 15-20% ammo left and there is no line of sight with enemy. Unskilled AI don't care and will happily meet you with 1 round left in theie magazine (seen this so many times. AI see you, fire one shot and instantly starts reloading infront of you). Just thinking here that this makes it possible to better simulate untrained combatants vs trained combatants in different scenarios. Would be nice if the AI Tank gunners view cone (focus) was generally really narrow, the AI drivers was forward in a ~180degree arc (unfocused) and the AI commander was at a semi-focused ~45degree arc and regularly scanning 360 degrees to look for threats. This way, the commander would do the spotting, gunner would focus on enemy and shoot, while driver keeps situational awareness forwards. Pair that with reaction time and you actually stand a decent chance against enemy AI in the field, and ambushes become more valuable in terms of gameplay.

I'm afraid you are a little late there friend. Or maybe I should say Freund? The devs have already said that the content is basically 'locked' now for internal beta testing. If they have not added the tanks you mentioned by now, they won't be added at all I'm afraid! :/

And while on the topic, the SLAT armor shouldn't really suffer much damage from the APFSDS because 1. The odds of actually hitting the bars is really low. 2. The bars are so small, the rod/dart will pass through it like butter, meaning very little energy (damage) is transfered to the SLAT module itself. It's like trying to destroy a wire fence by shooting it with a 50cal sniper. Even if you hit a piece of wire, it'll just snap and the fence is still structurally 99.9% intact. High caliber HE, IED'S, Mines, Missiles, large HEAT, Bombs and collisions on the other hand, should damage/weaken the SLAT armor significantly.

It really depends on the type of ERA. According to the internet: Early variants on the T-55 were designed to withstand 12,7mm AP reliably. They were also designed to withstand adjacent ERA blocks when they detonate (to avoid chain reaction). Later versions withstand up to 25mm APDS, and are designed with very insensitive explosives. In any case, they are designed to only trigger when hit by APFSDS or HEAT. Although 40mm APFSDS should do the trick!

Nice to see bohemiakitteh on the job. Would benefit from touch-classes though to type with individual claws instead of entire paws. Aaaaaanyhow. Thanks for the honesty and transparency. Helps keep expectations realistic. Good luck on sorting stuff out with known bugs, animations and the likes. Perhaps there will be windows to improve on things post-DLC launch? Who knows :) Otherwise, when can I preorder the next installment of ArmA, 'cause after all ArmA is a knockout game series! :)

No. They get destroyed though, piece by piece :) Besides, I don't think they are particularly flammable in real life.

Another reason a brewup/cookoff/fire/smoke effect would fit well into the game. Because right now the vehicle seems fine when they all eject. Then boom outta nowhere. While on the subject, could they perhaps disembark in a queue? Like from transports, one at a time? These are like olympic champions in synchronized ejection. :) For this effect to happen, I'm pretty sure the gun breech has to be open. Which is rather random/rare. I think most people think this is common because of the epic brewup footage of T72 in syria. :)