AegisWolf

Love the shotguns, wish we got a few more for the basic factions, both standalone, and underbarrel.

I've been unable to load any virtual arsenal loadouts which have a suppressor anywhere but applied to the weapon. Is that intended? EDIT: Wrong thread, doesn't concern the actual assets.

If the black Mk. 200 variant is intended for the LDF, there should probably be a red-tracer-ed ammunition option for it.

Three things: 1) Players need to be the "soldier" class from Zeus, with the medic and engineer attributes, otherwise we're hobbled if we pull a class that has a toolkit or medikit. 2) The uniform standards need to be expanded to all uniforms for a related faction, pilot overalls, ghillie suits, etc. 3) The up-armored tank variants, both of the Rhino and the Slammer, should be available to NATO.

@nodunit Is there any possibility or intention for an interface that would allow us to access the pylon settings from within the game, without resorting to scripting? Maybe ammo trucks or weapons trolleys?

I play a lot of public Zeus on the official servers. Even when I play modded Zeus, it's a bit of a hassle, usually involves relaying pylons through the Zeus. Just seems like something that makes sense for it to be in the game, would benefit the game, and would probably not be extensive to code. (though I could be wrong on that last point)

I'm somewhat disappointed that even though they're revisiting Jets, there is still no way to adjust an aircraft's pylons within a game. Ammo trucks, or even the decorative missile bomb/trolleys would be perfect for this, and allow people playing in any non-premade-scenario game to adjust their loadouts, and actually use some of these new weapons.

I love the work that's gone into the interiors. They're gorgeous. One problem: screens/reflections at night. Everybody suffers from this, including aircraft and helicopters, but it seems especially pronounced in some of the new vehicle interiors. If you're using night vision to look out one of the new drivers' vision blocks, it'll often catch glare from the screens presenting you information, and/or any gunfire your tank is unleashing. This can make it very difficult to see at night. The gunfire reflection is unrealistic for obvious reasons, the screens for the fact that screens like that are going to have an NV-compatible low-light mode. Even civilian glass cockpit displays, now, have this, not necessarily for NVGs, but to simply not be brighter than the environment exterior of the vehicle.

That, and they're much easier than an autoloader to replace.

I'm not sure how I feel about introducing a learning AI to Arma. xD

Well, that's that.

Arma 3: Anatomy Infantry DLC

Yeah, OK, we're on a short tangent. Discussion of APS requires discussion of aircraft armament and tactics, and possible necessary changes. Nobody's expecting or hoping the Tanks DLC to actually include more air assets, beyond tweaks to already existing assets in the accompanying base game patch. Yes and no. Comanche's heritage certainly sticks out. NATO doesn't really have a heavy attack helicopter, no. However, they have an attack helicopter drone, with Apex. BI may intend NATO to go for the drone partner tactic for rotary wing aviation: Blackfoot acts as spotter and leader, and lets the drones take the risks in the attack. Yes, DAGR are based on what is essentially simple guidance kit for a Hydra 70 rocket. Yes, they can come with HEAT warheads. Is this likely going to penetrate a tank? Maybe the top or rear armor, maybe not. Unless otherwise stated, I've been assuming that weapons like this are HE-Frag. I'd draw a parallel to 40mm grenades. We don't assume those are HEDP, right? Otherwise they'd be going right through MRAPs.

Comanche was originally intended to replace the Kiowa, not the Apache. It was eventually scrubbed with the end of the Cold War and the advent of drones which could do the same job, with less personnel risk. The fact that it was originally intended as an armed reconnaissance helicopter is obvious in Arma, with it's rather light, though effective armament. Whether or not the default loadout can hack it is a moot point, as BI is going to make the loadout editor available in-game any...day.....now....... (right?...Eventually?) If DAGR can't overpower APS and destroy an MBT, as I do not think it should anyway, then the Blackfoot would have to resort to the same 2-step solution as the infantry: 1) Disable the APS turrets themselves with either autocannon, or DAGR or DAR that the APS will not intercept, no longer being a threat to the tank itself. 2) Attack the tank directly with Scalpel. Honestly, if they give us another aircraft DLC pack, I'd love a NATO heavy attack VTOL (Think stealthy Apache x Osprey) and a CSAT answer to the Blackfish, a super-heavy lift helicopter, like an updated Mi-26, (or -12) in addition to a non-stealthy/ESSS/DAP Ghosthawk loadout.

You do bring up a good point, in that DAGR would probably be the best weapon for a helicopter to take on a tank with, at least without taking on the APS with the autocannon, first. DAGR are pretty simple, IRL, they're not top attack, and they wouldn't carry a very big warhead, but in Arma, their damage stacks, even against armored vehicles. That might be a problem for the implementation in-game. It's a weapon that is unlikely to pose a serious threat to a tank's armor IRL, but does in Arma. If the devs have APS engage the DAGRs, odds are the DAGR will just run the APS out of interceptors, then kill it anyway. If they don't, it'll still be able to kill the tank with what seems to be a fragmentary warhead. Devs could maybe either reduce the number of DAGRs carried on a single pylon, or change the damage model of DAGR, so they only do superficial damage to tanks.

It might also help if they gave us the option to make the mouse a first order controller for vehicle turrets, instead of a simple pointer. This is how I see a new balance with a hard counter APS on tanks and hopefully heavy APCs/IFVs: A) Individual APS turret stops any and all incoming HEAT and HE rounds, including from other tanks, within its arc of fire, at any volume of fire. Heavy AT missiles, such as the Macer or Kh-25 are up for debate, possibly being intercepted, but still doing at least superficial damage, possibly with a chance to deal enough damage to disable the offending APS turret. It's worth noting that a laser-guided bomb is probably not going to be intercepted at sufficient range to prevent catastrophic damage to the tank. It should probably ignore anything below ~60mm, otherwise an HE autocannon would simply force it to expend all of its ammunition. B) Individual APS turrets have limited ammunition. Replenishment should be through the ammo trucks, same as soft countermeasures. C) Individual APS turrets have limited firing arcs, depending on placement, and position of the turret. There may be a gap in the arcs, depending on the tank. They may overlap in other areas. In these areas, only one countermeasure should fire, from the launcher with the most shots left. D) APS systems do not stop kinetic projectiles, such as APFSDS shells fired from other tanks or armored vehicles. This also includes machine gun and small arms fire. E) Individual APS turrets have limited durability. They should be slightly more durable than remote weapon systems, given their provenance on heavy armor, but only slightly. They are also slightly smaller targets than remote weapon systems in addition to being on a mobile platform. Concluding: Infantry would be able to take advantage of the APS turrets' vulnerability to kinetic projectiles, and use such systems as sniper rifles, remote .50 cal turrets, or even a friendly IFV in ambush to knock out APS turrets, rendering the tank vulnerable to anti-tank missiles. Tankers, conversely, would be able to take advantage of the fact that they have multiple APS turrets responsible for different arcs, and in the case of running out of interceptors, or a disabled APS turret at one location, should rotate the turret to keep the tank covered. I'd actually like to see APS systems on the Mora, Panther, and Kamysh, in addition to the MBTs.

From an ease of use standpoint, I don't know if this is realistic, but it'd be nice if BI adjusted the FCS, that if one ranges/tracks a target, the stabilization takes that into consideration and pivots around the ranged point. This would also be very helpful for attack helicopters. A new look at ground vehicle countermeasures, both hard and soft, is also very much in order.

I'd love the ability to swap Pintle mounts, as well. .50 cals on Ghosthawks, and the like. Maybe even some of the remote weapon systems.

Could they get rid of the seats in the M2A1s? I know they've already done the modeling, but that's where they put the tank ammo. Speaking of ammo, several non-tank armored vehicles seem to carry a ludicrously low amount of ammunition. If, for remote weapon stations, they don't put extra magazines because they cannot be reloaded without exiting said vehicle anyway, at least partially, they should implement a reload option on the outside, similar to the repair mechanic. Looking forward to, hopefully, APS and better stabilization and optics, thermal or otherwise, for tankers.

You could link it to stamina. Out of stamina? Do it really slowly. Got most of your stamina? Fairly quick.

My point with the trigger was how widespread such destruction, as you describe, would be. Even if I got one of my wishes, and we got dual-purpose submunitions, it might be possible for BI to rig it so that the warheads have a different damage profile (i.e. more damage over a smaller area) if they actually strike a tank, to somewhat mimic reality. Maybe. Worst case scenario, they give it a steeper damage curve than a typical HE warhead, with the high damage area cranked up enough to damage a tank through the top armor. In either case, it wouldn't do significantly more damage than it deserves to, to a town and the terrain around it. This is all somewhat moot, cause data-lock. Copying the CSAT submunition models over to the NATO and AAF submunitions would still probably be the easiest option, while bestowing some realism. Also, has anyone checked the submunition count and spread vs. reality? Anybody know how high HEAT cluster munition are generally set to disperse to try and direct-hit armor targets, versus those trying to hit personnel and materiel with fragmentation?

Bear in mind, though, there's already a non-aerial version of the sensor-fused shaped-charge weapon systems in-game, the M6 SLAM mine. They would even have similar triggering conditions, with the possible exception that the airborne version would detonate with contact with the ground, if it hasn't found any targets.

Right now, the portrayed submunitions for the NATO and AAF cluster muntions are HEAT warheads, with the NATO variant being, in real life, a dual-purpose warhead, acting as a HEAT warhead on impact with a hard surface, and a fragmentary warhead on impact with a soft(er) surface. After a decent amount of testing, I cannot discern any significant damage dealt to a reasonably armored target from any of the cluster munitions. The only disablings I have seen have been on wheeled vehicles, an expected outcome for fragmentary weapons. Were the decision mine, I would either changing the NATO and AAF damage models to reflect this, or changing the models and textures of the NATO and AAF submunitions to match their in-game effects. Arguably, you could simply use the CSAT submunition model for the NATO and AAF submunitions, as the ShOAB-0.5 submunitions are very close to the American BLU-36 deployed in the CBU-24 bomb. Mention of tactics might be made in-game: Anti-personnel and -materiel cluster munitions such as this are much more effective than unitary munitions against soft targets in cover due to the heightened probability of a submunition landing in said cover. If this wasn't at the end of the development of this weapon system in the game, I'd have suggested you either go for dual-purpose submunitions across the board, or attempt to model the much more interesting sensor-fused submunitions such as the CBU-97 and RBK-500-SPBE-D for NATO and CSAT, leaving AAF with dual-purpose clusters. Anti-armor munitions such as this are excellent against grouped armor units, and are an important counter to massed armor pushes.

Was there ever a solution to this? I've been getting this recently, more and more frequently.

Ugh, the link erased most of my post.