Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Strike_NOR

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    505

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Strike_NOR

  1. Posted

    Hello @Beagle! The stuff you are talking about such as the recoil dampener, turret bushings, chassis, suspension and finally tracks are all contributing to reducing the "felt recoil". You are absolutely right, but I can't for the life of me see how this results in the exact same appearance of tank recoil. I mean, please correct me if I got this wrong, but the whole point of recoil is to spread the force over a greater period of time, namely the "impulse". The mass of the tank is so huge, that if the entire recoil was absorbed in an instant (i.e if the tank does not have a recoil dampener) it would be an extreme load on the gun mounts, turret, chassis and crew. Why? Because the tank wouldn't really move that far back due to the mass and ground friction, so all the force would be distributed instantly.

     

    It's essentially the same reason that modern cars have "crumple zones" to absorb high-energy crashes better. Old cars were almost like solid steel. Crashing at 70km/h meant that the entire momentum of the vehicle was experienced in an instant. The following G forces applied to the people in the car would kill them, contrary to modern cars where the car would systematically collapse over time so that the net force of the crash is distributed, which means a lower G-force.

     

    So why am I still bothering you guys with this? Well.. If the tank is exposed to let's say 10 Megajoules of recoil, I will make a rough estimation of what happens:

     

    First the barrel slides backwards (this is already happening a tiny bit while the projectile is still leaving the barrel), compressing the gas/hydro in the dampener. This is the major feature of the weapon that reduces the impulse, newton said the recoil is still 10 Megajoules, the energy has to convert into something. Some energy is converted to heat followed by the rise of pressure in the hydropneumatic dampener, but not enough to significantly matter for this thought experiment. During the dampening, the force has now been evenly transferred to the gun mounts, turret, turret ring, chassis, which are all pretty rigid. The next part of dampening happens in the suspension, energy is stored in springs and shocks which finally transfer some final force to the tracks. The tracks pose some serious friction due to the weight of the tank, and normally the final energy is spent here. The stored energy in the suspension now lifts the tank back to its resting state, and the gun dampening system returns the barrel back to firing position. 

     

    This is what I assume goes on, you know,  kurzgesagt! 

     

    So how on earth is say 30-40% less force applied to this system, going to impact the tank just as much?! The only reasoning I can think of is that the recoil dampener system knows what ammo type you are using and adjusts the dampener pressure accordingly to achieve the same impulse. 

     

    It would be just like saying that crashing the modern car from my example above in 100 km/h and 60 km/h will damage it just as much!?!?

     

    As a final point here's a video from the glory days where people had more imagination than respect for safety :P This (Ironically named) "High Impulse Weapon System" (Should be named low impulse because of recoil reduction :P) Is shoulder fired 76mm projectile.

    Now imagine firing that with a shell that had less kinetic energy. You would simply NOT bounce back as hard. Or else I give up entirely on this Endeavour, or quest for the truth behind Tank Recoil simulation in ArmA3 :p

     

    Now I am only talking from a physical-theoretical standpoint, but I must be onto something right? 

     

    Still, the devs remain silent. Maybe I've scared them off... :p No wonder.... *cries in physics*

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    54 minutes ago, Beagle said:

    Recoil is defined by muzzle velocity and projectile weight, not bei muzzle velocity alone. Multi Purpose Warheads have a weight of 11,4 - 13,5 kg at 1200-1400m/s while tungsten or DU penetrators have a weight of 8-10 Kg at 1600-1700 m/s. The result is a comparable amount of recoil.

     

    Whoa whoa, stop right there :) It would be better to just hear from the Devs how the recoil is calculated and transferred into a force acting on the vehicle. If it is related to projectile mass and velocity, then all is fine. If it is only related to velocity, well that may be why we are seeing different amounts of recoil. It may just be that they forgot to tweak the HE magazine values.

     

    Either way, before debunking my statement and settling on "fact" you should find a more credible source. Like a specific gun's actual ammunition types and their respective muzzle velocities and projectile (not shell/cartridge) weight. Just claiming that MP ammunition weighs 11,4 to 13,5 kg is very general. Putting some quick maths into your examples we get Ke=1/2*m*v^2 = about 8Megajoules for the HE shell and 10Megajoules for the APFSDS. That's a considerable difference.. Using your examples :)

     

    Technically we would need the correct mass and muzzle velocity for say.... a popular 120mm tank gun.

     

    So to prove how far I'm willing to go to support my point (and possible also keep realism in ArmA3 :) )... I dug up some info online.

     

    Take the Rheinmetall M256 120mm Smoothbore.

     

    The M829 APFSDS Penetrating Rod (with sabot) weighs 9kg. It's muzzle velocity is 1575m/s. This amounts to ~11,2 Megajoules.

     

    The M830 HEAT-MP-T Projectile weighs 11.4 kg. It's muzzle velocity is 1140m/s. This amounts to ~7,4 Megajoules.

     

    So we have a difference of about 3,8 Megajoules, or easier to understand 40% difference in Kinetic energy.

     

     

    I hope this clears things up. But this only goes for the real life 120mm Rheinmetall Smoothbore with exactly the M829 APFSDS and M830 HEAT-MP-T as an example. It does not portray recoil for any of the tanks ingame.

     

    Therefore I want the devs to comment on it :) Please feel free to use my calculations, they are not copyrighted :p

  3. Posted

    12 hours ago, laxemann said:

    Heya everybody,

    i thought you might be interested in getting a first listen at the helicopter audio revamp I'm currently working on! :)

    It's heavily WIP as I'm still experimenting on how to get the most dynamic soundscape out of the least amount of sounds/voices used, but you get the idea.

     

    Cheers

    LAxe

     

    Beautiful work! Wunderbar!

     

    You are the Mozart of battleground noise!

     

    audio-engineer-definition-t-shirts-women

     

    I am grateful nonetheless :)

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  5. Posted

    On ‎16‎.‎10‎.‎2017 at 12:06 PM, reyhard said:

    5. Fire missile & watch it as it's automatically heading to the reticle center

     

    First of all. WOW. Never thought I would see this kind of fidelity in ArmA 3 :) DCS level stuff there!

     

    Now to confess one of my findings. The CCIP of the SU-25 (pipper) does not follow the ocean surface. It actually traces the ocean floor. So when aiming bombs, rockets, guns or guiding the awesome KH-29L or ML, it simply tracks the bottom of the ocean instead :)

     

    http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view.php?id=3660

  9. Posted

    This has gotten slightly off-topic I guess, but a few things come to mind before the mods come hunting for us ;) .

     

    No vanilla A3 vehicles have a "loader" position (correct me if I'm wrong), so technically speaking they have no purpose in the vanilla game. You have a driver (very important), gunner (also very important) and commander (this guy THINKS he is important).

     

    I am already assuming that at least one of the DLC tanks will feature 2 crewmembers. A version that has no crew in the turret. The turret will probably feature autoloader, be quite a bit smaller than conventional crewed turrets and be very safe to operate in a hull-down position. The roles of the crew will most likely be driver and gunner (commander). This would explain one more reason as to why they added the new AI-driver commandeering. You could technically make a tank without the driver and give that role to the commander, and have a dedicated gunner if you like.

     

    However, this goes for the Vanilla game.

     

    Mods such as RHS and IFA3 have a great number of vehicles that have 4 or more crewmembers. For such vehicles there may be a dedicated loader. With the new FFV mechanics, a loader may serve as a gunner for turrets, MG's or use his personal firearm when turned out. He may also become an extra pair of eyes to scan the battlefield for threats, and even serve as a backup crew for any of the other slots in case they are KIA. So already, the loader can be useful in an MP environment. However, the game does not require the loader to be present in order to reload the weapon, nor does he have any effect on the reload process.

     

    If it were up to me to improve the loader functionality within the game in a meaningful and balanced way I'd propose the following:

     

    • Allow the vehicle to have config-defined reload mechanic, either the weapon is auto-loaded, or it is manually loaded.
    • Define in config what crew-seat is normally responsible for loading the weapon (normally Loader, but could be gunner or commander depending on vehicle type).
    • Make AI skill influence the reload time (expert AI reload as fast as human crew, rookie AI get a 25% penalty. Example 10s reload for human. 12,5 second reload for rookie AI).
    • Human crew always gives the maximum Rate of Fire.
    • Absence of the dedicated loader crew will induce a serious penalty to reload (e.g 50% penalty). Opposing vehicles with 10s reload, would have 10s vs 15s, meaning that vehicle with loader can fire 4 shells in the time it takes vehicle without loader to fire 3.

    What the player would actually be doing is scanning sectors and manning any MGs at his disposal, while at the same time providing the vehicle with the best possible rate of fire. It adds more depth to the gameplay without overcomplicating things (IMHO). It could easily become frustrating if he was told to reload AP, then just use action menu to select round, hit R -> repeat. Better if he is like an extra "passenger with benefits" :) 

     

    A tactical decision for the commander in case of the loss of a gunner. He could order the driver to get into the loader seat, or move himself in order to gain that crucial rate of fire, that could turn the tide in the heat of the moment. However, he wouldn't HAVE to do it. 

     

     

     

    Anyways, enough dreaming. The fire control system is working well imho. Turned up the object view distance yesterday and messed around with it at long ranges. It works really well :) (Rowing my boat back to On Topic... nothing to see here)

     

  11. Posted

    Fantastic! Looks really amazing.

     

    Funny thing is... BI went futuristic with their game, while the majority of the community seems to feel more strongly connected to the past (World Wars, Vietnam, Cold war etc). Somehow new equipment and gadgets make killing so effective, it kinda takes the sport out of it? Am I right? :)

     

    Either way, looking forward to this :) Looks amazing already! Good luck!

    • Like 4

  12. Posted

    15 hours ago, wiki said:

    What do you thibk about it?

     

    Well to be completely honest I never really understood what to expect from Tac-Ops. Seeing that I have always been more excited about Jets and Tanks DLC, I have more or less assumed that Tac-Ops is going to bring something new and fun to the game. 

     

    My expectations were intense, small-scale cooperative missions that offered a very high level of replayability with features such as:

    • Mission types : Assault, Hostage Rescue, Sabotage, Bomb defusal, Counter-Terrorism etc.
    • Randomization : Random enemy and own factions/types/tech, random force strength, skill, map & location, time of day etc.
    • Planning phase : Let players view the objectives first and known threats, then choose how to execute the mission (stealthy or not).
    • Score/rating system : Allow players to view their statistics after mission. Check things such as kills, times incapacitated, time alive, objectives completed etc. Give a score you can try to beat next time.

    This and some new feature/equipment is what I was hoping for.

     

    However, it seems Tac-Ops is just a "filler" between Orange and Tanks. Sure, I enjoy the ArmA SP experience, and especially after playing Orange DLC campaign. I must hand it to BI that they reached a new milestone with that campaign.

     

    Hopefully they will bring everything good from the Orange DLC campaign into the Tac-Ops missions. They claim that the missions will offer replayability and typical ArmA-style sandbox gameplay. Hopefully the missions are really good and probably even raise the bar for official ArmA 3 mission content! As a bonus, I would hope that these missions could be released with multiplayer compatibility, but I expect they would not have underlined SP missions if that was the case.

     

     

     

    Either way, I'm enjoying the changes to tanks in Devbranch, but sometimes progress is slow there so it will be good to mess around with Tac-Ops while waiting for tanks!

  13. Posted

    34 minutes ago, lexx said:

    This means, that a decal system like the mentioned would be a serious amount of work, I guess.

     

    Guessing is the best us mere mortals can do, I'd like to hear a dev say something about it. If a certain department of their development team, say art, have available manpower to address it, why not? 

     

    Besides, ArmA 3 "temporary decals" as you describe, behave interestingly in arma. Instead of just disappearing when the limit is met, they gradually shrink until they disappear. Also, it appears to be a per-object limit. If you shoot a house until the first decals begin to disappear, you have reached the house limit. If you start shooting a vehicle nearby, nothing happens to the house decals, but the vehicle decals seem to have their own limit. 

     

    9 minutes ago, xxgetbuck123 said:

    I believe the damage texture is one big whole texture that covers the vehicle

     

    Yeah, this is what I call the damaged state texture. It affects the entire module that has been hit and places a static/fixed damage texture on the vehicle. I wouldn't ask the devs to re-do this system, because it's deeply integrated into everything in the game. What I am suggesting is to alter the way "temporary decals" (or hit-location-based decals) work.

     

    On further thought though, if they remade the temporary hit-decals to a system that portrays better damage visuals, then the damage state textures could be removed for any vehicle condition below damage 1 (destroyed). The wreck textures would then be the only damage state that uses the "static/fixed" textures.

     

    I'd like to know more about how the decals work, but either way, an improvement over the current system would be a warm welcome to me :)

  14. Posted

    Quick suggestion:

     

    With the upcoming tanks DLC, a small, but important visual improvement could be considered: Improved hit decals/textures.

     

    Currently we have textured impact holes for ground hits, but the building/object hits look like a "soft edge brush" tool from a graphics design software. I would like to suggest looking into if it is possible to make the impact holes texture depend on whether or not the projectile passes through the object. If yes, create a "hole" effect. If no, create a dent/chipped effect.

     

    This image perfectly illustrates various impact effects on real armor in relation to ammo type:

     

    warheaddamage.jpg~original

     

    And here are some non-penetrating hit examples:

    a_2_2.jpg

     

    I found several entries in the feedback trackers that address this, asking for a potential upgrade, but many of them are expried/dead.

     

    You can use this ticket if you want to track it: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T65086

    Subtask for armored vehicles: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T126939

     

    I think it will add more immersion and a tactical/gameplay indicator to players to help them see if their shots are effective against armor or not.

    • Like 8

  16. Posted

    0912091455-1.jpg

     

    All aboard the Hype-Train (or Kuma)

     

    EDIT:

     

    So I finally got around to playing around with the Kuma. 

     

    First of all, and most importantly: This is a major improvement! The tanks feel heavier, more connected to the world, like they have inertia. Handling is way better than before.

     

    Handling

    I have never driven a real MBT before, let alone seen one in action with my own eyes. But from armchair-youtube-self-proclaimed-expert point of view, I must say this is MUCH closer to what I deem realistic, than the old handling system was. The tank tracks seem to now lock when braking, allowing the tank to skid back and forth, or even power-slide. The turning, acceleration, braking, steering in speed, stationary turning, it all feels more realistic to me. Also a huge plus is the new commander/gunner control over the driver AI. WAY better controls, but probably needs some kind of mini-HUD to indicate commander/gunner view heading in relation to hull heading.

     

    Visuals

    The 3rd person view makes it harder to get a good glimpse of the tracks, but by pressing "num -" during 3rd person I could see the tracks better. They all seem to behave as should. Suspension looks very nice, tracks follow terrain. It becomes very apparent that the suspension has a "resting" spot midrange of the extension, it can be compressed some, but also extend (like when jumping or tracks is going over a steep edge). This all looks very believable to me. As I have limited knowledge of modern MBT's I don't know how much smoke they produce when accelerating, but I felt that it should produce a tad more. Also, when driving offroad, the tracks could "drizzle" dirt all along the top. To simulate dirt that has been carried around the end wheels and to the topside of the tracks. This also helps hide any "wonkyness" the tracks may be up to during high-speed offroad driving.

     

    Audio

    I immediately recognized some really nice new sound sets. Especially noticeable were the track squeals during turning/steering and the roar of accelerating. As speed increases, the track noise becomes more apparent. BUT, I somehow feel that the audio fades too quickly at distance. An MBT roaring across the battlefield can be heard from quite a distance, and I must say at 100m or so I couldn't even hear the thing coming. I would go as far as saying that if, for gameplay reasons, you can't whip out a launcher in the time it takes from hearing the tank, to having it roll by you, something is not right. My initial suggestion would be increase the range of engine roar (accel sound) by 2.5x, the regular engine noise, sqeals and track noise by 2x. I honestly think that tanks are really THAT loud and for gameplay reasons AND realism should be audible from a much greater distance. Sound masking (objects) should help a lot when being stealthy, and also being stationary or shutting off engine should improve stealth. 

     

    The final points of criticism

     

    Suspension: Somehow I get the feeling that the bounciness is slightly off for a ~62 Ton tank. While I simply can't speak for Main Battle Tank suspension, I can speak for aircraft shock absorbers. They are designed with a combination of compressed gas and oil and are often referred to as "Oleo legs". To keep aircraft from bouncing like kangaroos on the runway during landing, they allow a greater compression rate than extension rate. What this means is that the suspension can quickly deal with the compressing shock, but allows soft extension to avoid "springing" the aircraft into the air again. I would assume that the same effect is desirable for a tank (EDIT: The challenger MBT has hydropneumatic suspension, the Merkava it seems uses springs and shock absorbers).

    When driving your Kuma in-game, I ran over a narrow (about 6m wide, 2m deep) ditch at about 30km/h. When the rear of the Kuma hit the bottom of the ditch, it got flung into the air again so hard it just seemed unnatural. So much that the back of the tank was higher than the initial starting point by at least 3 meters. There were no bushes or small rocks there.

     

    Handling: During jumps, the tank repeatedly starts "yawing". It seems like if there is even the slightest difference between when the individual tracks get "airborne" the tank starts turning towards the side that still has ground contact. This force seems exaggerated and often causes you to land sideways and lose your forward momentum.

     

    Third and final point: This may be too early to "cry" about, but collisions seems a bit strange at this point. If the tank hits anything, it seems like it just freezes in spot. It doesn't collide and bounce back or lift its rear upon sudden stop. It just "freezes" in spot. Sometimes small rocks produce this effect of just freezing. This even happened when I hit the small wooden shack/shed with two doors. I would expect the buildings that are of roughly the same size as the tank to partly or fully collapse when crashing into them. 

     

     

    So all in all, a HUGE step in the right direction, and let's see if other testers agree with some of my points or if it's just me :)

    • Like 7

  17. Posted

    2 hours ago, oukej said:

    Atm we can 'only acknowledge' this shortcoming :/

     

    And I believe "we" (the community) acknowledge and value your transparency. 

     

    Actually you even bring a possible workaround to the issue, so good on you :) !

     

    It would be very interesting to see a beamriding missile in ArmA. It would technically want to keep itself center of the player-to-target line of sight at all times, leading to some very different behavior (probably more erratic zig-zagging or corkscrewing).

     

    As of ArmA's native 2035 scope, maybe this would fit as the "premium anti-tank weapon" for the Syndikat or FIA (low tech), instead of Titan or NLAW style weapons.

  19. Posted

    27 minutes ago, oukej said:

    In what way? That it flies directly to the position you aim at and doesn't follow the beam line from the launcher?

     

    I assume that what he means is that manual guidance in vanilla appears to be based on the missile aiming for a virtual point in the game world, as if it were a laser dot. While many real life counterparts follow the actual beam, and not the dot at the destination, just like you say.

     

    These guidance types differ greatly between designs, but it often leads to the in-game missiles following a so-called "pursuit" path to their target. If the target is stationary, this usually never becomes an issue, but with moving targets, the missile will always take the longest route, lose most of its energy and have the least chance of hitting. If hitting, it will generally hit the back of the target at an acute angle, minimizing the potential effect of the weapon.

     

    The lead pursuit method is often preferred, where by using proportional navigation mathematics you can use the rate of change in missile Line of Sight (LOS) to lead onto the target. 

     

    This will essentially make the missile aim for where the target is heading, always adjusting for any course/velocity deviation made by the target. 

     

    For weapons such as the NLAW, if I understand it correctly, it uses predicted impact point lead calculation. In an instant, it calculates range to target and target speed/bearing. This is then compared to the missiles speed, or time of flight to the predicted point, and a firing solution is fed to the missile. Upon firing, the missile automatically adjusts its course and heads for the predicted impact point. If the target stops or makes any large adjustments after launch, the missile will miss.

     

     

    Anyways, I could go lecture about this with half-science forever. I'm guessing that manual guidance in vanilla ArmA currently operates on point tracking (pursuit), not lead pursuit like the guided weapons (tab-lock) use.

     

    Needless to say, I wanted to shed some light on this as it may become more important for Tanks DLC :)

    • Like 1

  20. Posted

    14 hours ago, ryandombrowsky said:

     

    More silly videos. :P

     

    Holy undead!

     

    That was some amazing work! Did you make this? Either way that is some really awesome editing. Perfectly timed animations, voice, etc. Really well done!

     

    Enjoyed every second of it! Especially loved the car scene, that was really well made!

  21. Posted

    Had the opportunity to play around with anti-armor mechanics again yesterday. Lined up a bunch of russian anti-tank weapons and fired them at a fully crewed M113 with passengers.

     

    All I can say is wow. You have really managed to create some fantastic behind-armor effects. Even AP rounds cause severe spalling upon entry (this is a rather new feature I think?). The entire crew-compartment of the M113 was riddled with shrapnel after I fired a Sabot round from the T-72. Truly convincing stuff! Bravo! Now APFSDS, HEAT-FS, HEAT etc all work as you would expect, leading to a lot more "coffins" rather than burning wrecks. I am genuinely impressed and can not stress enough how amazing these features would be in vanilla ARMA (wink wink), combined with perhaps some ammo-rack damage simulation etc (wink wink).

     

    I also noticed a few jaw-dropping details while playing. For instance, firing sabot ammo from T-72, I paused the game and could see the actual fragments from the sabot itself separate into the air. That's wicked!

     

    The reload animation for the AT-3 sagger on the BMP-1 is also just amazingly cool!

     

    Loving the fact that you have to turn out to use the roof mounted Kornet(?) launcher. And it even has amazing animations for operating the traverse and elevation handles :)

     

    I'm absolutely mesmerized by the attention to detail. And it's only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what this mod brings to the game!

     

    RHS mod is worthy of being nicknamed "ArmA 3.5", somehow bridging the gap between ArmA 3 and ArmA 4 in terms of pushing the limits of the engine, adding top quality content and bringing tons of replayability to the game.

     

    I wish you all the best of luck continuing development of the mod, and assisting BI with remaining future DLC. My sincere gratitude goes out to all of the highly talented RHS devs for this gem of a mod, and to BI devs for this fantastic platform :)

     

    Have a great weekend all of you!

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1

  22. Posted

    49 minutes ago, reyhard said:

    From our tests it seems chances to hit something with those unguided heat munition is actually very low, unless you release 2 or more bombs at once

     

    My tests concluded the same. And even so, the effect of these small HEAT munitions are quite limited. You have to really hit the sweet-spot in order to knock out a vehicle.

     

    Actually, a rough estimation from about 10 cluster bomb strikes on a convoy with evenly spaced vehicles, I think I had a <5% hitrate, with an even lower destruction rate.

     

    I assume adding more bomblets would dramatically increase the chance of hitting something, thus increasing the cluster bomb effectiveness.

     

     

    Last question: How do the HEAT weapons work in RHS in terms of spawning armor penetrating projectiles. Do they distinguish hitting ground from hitting a brick wall or a vehicle? To me it seems that the HEAT effect only kicks in if it hits a vehicle.

    Hitting a sheet metal wall on a building, for instance, does not seem to trigger the HEAT effect. By HEAT effect I mean the spawning of multiple armor-piercing projectiles to simulate the molten copper jet.

  23. Posted

    57 minutes ago, da12thMonkey said:

    Not currently.

     

    Thanks for answering. I totally understand that decision. It really starts getting interesting when you have something like 50 HEAT bomblets that, if hitting armor, will generate X amount of spall-fragments bouncing all over the insides of vehicles.

     

    As for the amount of bomblets being spawned, I would assume mine-variants would use less CPU power, due to the fact that they only follow a trajectory and "freeze" when they hit something solid. Each cluster bomb would only need to spawn a random number between 0 to 5 UXO's maybe? I'm sure you have already put thought into that so who am I to suggest anything.

     

    Either way, my sincere admiration for what you have accomplished. My only wish is for BI to look to your mod for inspiration when making tanks DLC. The armor mechanics you introduce with damage effects and all are just way impressive. Brings the game up to war-thunder level for damage calculation IMHO. A much better interpretation of real life than vanilla.

     

    Love the new weapons, love the rocket dispersion, love the Mig-29. What isn't there to be happy about with RHS? :)

     

  24. Posted

    Your mod is absolutely fantastic! I love what you have done with armor warfare. Tanks, armor penetration, HEAT simulation. Everything is amazing.

     

    I found one bug with the RBK-250 Ptab variant. The submunitions spawn with wrong orientation. It has been reported here http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view.php?id=3578

     

    I have a question about the cluster munitions. Are they using UXO's? I have yet to find one with your bombs.

     

  25. Posted

    All in all I am hoping for some better vehicle/AI interactions with Tanks DLC.

     

    Stuff like using vehicles for cover, but also keeping a distance when the vehicle is either on fire or about to explode. AI switching crew positions after their fellow crewmembers die is also important. Each vehicle should have prioritized crew-positions so that if, say, the gunner dies, the commander may switch seats in order to keep vehicle combat effective. The least important roles should be loader, radioman, commander. Priority no 1 being driver or gunner, depending on vehicle serviceability. If the tracks are shot, or engine is dead, there is no point in crewing the drivers seat. If the gun/turret is dead, there is no point in crewing the gunners seat.

     

    I also hope for way smarter Anti-Tank AI. Somehow the response time can be very slow, and AI hesitate to fire at tanks for some reason. There should be new light anti-tank weapons that fire high-speed HEAT rockets, available to the infantry, not only advanced heavy anti tank guided missiles.

     

    I also wish to see vehicle AI that uses concealment better (hiding behind terrain, buildings in relation to known enemy direction). I'd love to see AI crew move tanks into cover or pop-in and out of cover to take shots.

     

    Finally it would be nice to see AI Crew suppression effects. AI crew could bail out if one or more crew members were killed. I don't mean to be grotesque, but in real life, seeing your buddy get plastered around the insides of a very small compartment would generally cause most men to freak out. I'd also like to see crew suppression as a temporarily reduced "AI skill" debuff where the crew becomes less effective. Events that would trigger suppressed crew could be: Hit by large HE ammunition (artillery, bomb, IED, mine etc). Own vehicle crew member deaths. Loss of a friendly vehicle in your group. Etc. This would mean that a poorly skilled AI crew could abandon their vehicle upon learning that one or more of their allied vehicles have been destroyed, or render them increasingly combat-ineffective.

     

    In fact, a whole new AI parameter "morale"/"mental robustness" would be welcome to the entire game. Just like the Total War games, if morale breaks, the unit panics and may be extremely ineffective or downright try to escape the dangerous situation. Once they reach a "clear" area, their morale resets and they can continue their mission.

     

    The way ARMA AI works now makes them more like combat robots, very predictable, no randomness really.

    • Like 3
×