Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

znooptokkie

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    161

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by znooptokkie

  3. Posted

    It´s mainly the mid and high end pact tanks that are terribly overpriced. As an example:

    Leclerc and Leopard 2A5 costs 170 points while a T-72BU costs 180 Points. The Leclerc and Leopard have much better stats (especially the accuracy and RoF makes them win every fight, even aginst multiple high end Soviet tanks) but cost less.

    Andf you are right about the planes. Pact plane ECM is generally very bad so that the planes get picked off even by Stingers. Nato Planes on the other hand can evade even high end BUK AA and you need multiple Tunguskas to shoot down a plane. Strelas are practically useless since they do very little damge, even if the hit. It´s still Beta and I hope they will change this.

    If they seek a historically accurate approach then Soviet tanks should be greater in numbers and be cheaper. Nato Planes should be better than the Redfor planes but the Soviet AA should kick ass.

    This is how it is now for Tanks

    m1a2

    accuracy:65%

    rof:10

    hits per minute:6.5

    t72bu

    accuracy:50%

    rof:7

    hits per minute:3.5

    price:same

    And a T-72BU is nothing else but a T-90 (the Russians renamed it)

    Yeah, the T-72/T-90/T-80 are too expensive - but i guess that comes from the great ability to launch ATGM in stationary position. All russian tanks (with ATMGs) - the T-64 especially are better for defense than commit a frontal assault (range advantage of the ATGM/mostly bad stabilizers). The price for the top notch T-80 maybe good as it is but the T-90 is to expensive compared to the NATO tanks. Another way to fix that would be to just give the player a higher amount of T-80/T-72B/T-90.

    But why the hell they dont named the T-72BU -> T-90... even the N.Koreans have that tank under its real name (even if its the crappy export version).

    In the end i dont use many tanks when i play pact. My most used tank is the T-55AMV, because the price is good for what you get.

    I also tried to build a vdv deck but it lacks good AA capabilitys from ground level, if your fighter jets fail, you're doomed to get bombed back to stone age.

  4. Posted

    For myself i do prefer the Redfor nations. But im forced to play on Blufor cause my clanmates dont know the pact forces and dont want to learn how to play them...

    Tanks: I dont use them most of the time. I prefer a mix of infantry/AT-Vehicles plus air support and the pact forces have pretty good support vehicles and infantry units.

    But i have the feeling that NATO Tanks are not much better than USSR Tanks. The T55AMV for 70 points is well armed for its price and can defeat every NATO tank in a good defensive position (well, maybe not the top notch tanks like Leopard 2A5).

    But the pact aircrafts dont have the will to survive. A MiG 31 for example gets down with one missilie while the rafale/eurofighter/us-counterparts survive a whole bunch of hits (or is this just my feeling?).

  12. Posted

    So let me get this one straight L0ckAndWTF your super creative original username is. You paid for an incomplete game with little content plagued with bugs to the point where stability was just a dream and have said nothing about that but your inquiring why a community of people who have provided complete and stable releases FOR FREE with zero playability issues haven't ensured weapon textures and handling placement be the utmost of priorities? I'm ashamed that you've had to suffer the hardship of downloading and installing something that doesn't conform to your Free Content Standards, Please for your own sake discontinue any use of this dreadful content so it doesn't clash with the magnificent beauty of the myriad of better mods your running

    He just gave his feedback... isnt this answer a bit... rude? If you dont like feedback, ignore it...

    On the other hand: Yes, the weapons do their job and the textures or graphics in general are not the most important things in Arma.

  21. Posted · Edited by Znooptokkie

    i had this issue too, at me it was because i tried to put the mod into a custom modfolder (and the userconfig folder into the a3 root folder) but thats not possible because BWA3_userconfig.hpp had to be in \@BWA3\userconfig\BWA3_userconfig.hpp

    i would be nice if this can be changed, so custom modfolders are supported!

    Thats right, i want all my userconfigs from different mods in one folder. At the moment i cant do this. Or am i wrong? As some posts previous describe the game crashes when the bwmod userconfig is not in the default userconfig folder of the mod folder.

    And back to the tmr problem. As is prefer the 2d scopes on the vanilla scopes, deleting the tmr optics seems like a bad option :icon_wink: (in the end its not the bwmods fault). But good work anyway.

  22. Posted · Edited by Znooptokkie

    Very good work. But TMR Optics breaks your 2D Optics by adding its own over them :butbut:

    But never mind. The MG4 and Puma are both just awesome :ok:

    Thats off topic: Deleting TMR_optics is no solution if you want 2d scopes with the vanilla scopes. ;)

  24. Posted

    * Soviet invasion in Czecholsoviakia meets armed resistance, due to active help from NATO. In long run it causes active military conflict near Czechoslovakian-West Germany border. This scenario would have advantage of primary role beign played by Bundeswehr and British Army of the Rhine.

    Not playing as Americans AGAIN would be great too.

    Then there should be an soviet/east german invasion in northern germany. That really would be something new. British and German Forces against the warsaw pact. Without american units being the majority of nato forces. And thats in the 80s style :cylon:

    A scenario like China vs Soviet Union (80s)/ Russian Federation (modern time) would be great, too.

    But we will see what comes in the future, remember there are DLCs for ArmA 3 yet to come.

×