Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'tanks dlc'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


    • Vigor
    • DAYZ
    • ARMA 3
    • ARMA 2
    • YLANDS
    • ARGO
  • Die Hard OFP Lovers' Club's Topics
  • ArmA Toolmakers's Releases
  • ArmA Toolmakers's General
  • Japan in Arma's Topics
  • Arma 3 Photography Club's Discussions
  • The Order Of the Wolfs- Unit's Topics
  • 4th Infantry Brigade's Recruitment
  • 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit OFFICIAL | 11th MEU(SOC)'s 11th MEU(SOC) Recruitment Status - OPEN
  • Legion latina semper fi's New Server Legion latina next wick
  • Legion latina semper fi's https://www.facebook.com/groups/legionlatinasemperfidelis/
  • Legion latina semper fi's Server VPN LEGION LATINA SEMPER FI
  • Team Nederland's Welkom bij ons club
  • Team Nederland's Facebook
  • [H.S.O.] Hellenic Special Operations's Infos
  • BI Forum Ravage Club's Forum Topics

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL


Jabber (xmpp)








Steam url id







PlayStation PSN














Found 6 results

  1. Hey. Some thoughts that have poked me... With the reception interiors of armored vehicles , it seems to me, that time comes for a useful update, which can greatly improve the gameplay of Arma3. Today, (v1.80) inside the vehicles AI or the player does not have the ability to treat themselves, despite the fact that majority vehicles abound with medications. This fact looks, at least strange, if not more. It seems to me that adding the ability to heal itself inside vehicles would be a perfect addition for Tanks DLC, since interiors can now allow the addition of self-healing animation inside vehicles. I think this feature is simply necessary for all passengers. On the positions of Driver / Gunner / Commander this may be a matter for discussion. Here's how I see the details. if vehicle has medicaments, then: 1. On the passanger places the player or AI must be able to handle a wound. The AI always should do it independently (if he is injured and is inside) 2. With the reception of armor interiors, self-medication inside the vehicle must have the treat-animation in the sitting position. (one anim for all sitting) 3. If the AI leaves the vehicle and this AI not have a first aid package, then it should always take a nominal first aid package (one) with them. 4. The quality of the self- treatment inside the vehicle can have a different coefficient of recovery and can differ from self-treatment outside the vehicle (more or less effectively depending on the position and situation) @BIS, please think about these details. This can significantly improve the upcoming Tank DLC and the entire Arma platform as a whole
  2. Hi, how to get the « No Requiem » achievement ? Thanks,
  3. Hello devs! Unfortunately, after the release of DLC Tanks, the change of positions (driver/gunner/commander) in Arma was not affected at all. It was always a needle in my ass, but after the release of the interiors, this problem even aggravated. Why? After the release of Tanks DLC, I see how in half of second a player can find himself in any chair (driver/gunner/commander), without considering the inner walls of the vehicle and other units! Unfortunately, this looks not good. Please note, in most tanks or APC driver position has a separate location. This is a completely separate cabin, which is closed on all sides by bulkheads. Those. being inside such a vehicle, a person physically can not change his position - "from gunner to driver" or "from commander to driver" or "from driver to commander" or "from driver to gunner". This is physically impossible! Why do we see this in Arma? When a player changes all positions passing through the walls, then it looks absurd. I propose to take this moment into account and make a change of positions from the position of the driver (or to driver position) accessible only from the outside of the vehicle. In this case, the place where the player wants to sit should be free. So it should be in real life. For example. If you are in the gunner position, then in order to sit in the driver's chair you need to first get out, go to the driver's hatch and only after that sit on the driver's seat. Or vice versa. In this case devs, you can use the action menu (choice of place) or personal icons (when a player approaches a certain place of the vehicle) It seems to me that every interior, before changing positions should take into account the current position of the player. Most vehicles physically even do not allow (!not leaving vehicle) changing the position "from gunner to commander"and vice versa. For example, see Varsuk T-100 or Rhino. It is impossible physically to change position from the gunner to commander's position and vice versa. The main weapon prevents this! In this case, also it would also be good to change positions from only the outside vehicle. Such a feature could add a bit of realism (time spending for changing positions). In general, I want to say - in most cases, for change positions (driver/gunner/commander) the player must leave the vehicle and the position where he wants to sit should be free. Devs please try give the player a bit of realism on the backgrounds of vehicles interiors.
  4. Hi, Before reading is there a way to send this directly to bohemia because I like to talk to them I was asking about the ARMA 3 Tanks DLC pack what new tanks are gonna be added? I heard your are going to add a tank that is like the T-14 Armata... well I wanted a new tank something like the Leopard 3 Prototype, the Leopard 3 prototype has a 130mm Gun. It looked like the MBT revolution with some minor difference Now when you balance this hang on... The T-14 armata HAS NO "Turret armour" I have done my research and thats what they have claim but it has a really good crew protection so it has a 900mm Hull armour... The Leopard 3 or MBT Revolution has claimed to have 1500mm of armour and with a 130mm gun. I REALLY WANT TO SEE A GERMAN TANK COULD THERE BE A 2A7 PERHAPS?
  5. Good day and Great news! Together with the Improved Damage System, ArmA becomes significantly better. Yes! It seems to me that it will look fine, but when I recall the current repair in Arma3, then I feel bad... I can not imagine such detaieded damage system and old repair (self-treatment animation within 5-6 second at a distance of 5-10 meters from the repair target), which is still present in the game. Unfortunately such repair looks absurd. BIS, with the Tanks DLC, please also create at least a some repair system in Arma! It was necessary for Arma always, but now it becomes even more necessary. As seems to me, - against the background of the Improved damage system, in the game there should also be at least some adequate repair system. I was always worried about the lack of a repair system in Arma and before, I already suggested something here some details from me: a) different repair-possibilities for repair-vehicles and for engineers/repair-specialists. b) support-crew for repair-vehicles (inside all repair-vehicles) c) repair of each broken vehicle part separately (engine, every wheel, left/right track, weapon, petrol tank etc) d) special repair animations, near the damaged parts of the vehicle. e) repair of vehicles from inside (some specific parts such as turrets, engine) f) supported ai-repair ability g) ability to configure repair by means modules in the editor If at least something from this list will be implemented this will be very good! Who likes my offer, please support me, especially now, before the release of Tanks DLC. Maybe there are personal offers? Let's discuss here Thanks...
  6. [I wasn't sure if i should put this here or in the general A3 topic, decided to put it here as it pertained to Tanks DLC. Apologies if this is the wrong place.] The infantry-vehicle balance in Arma 3 has been very-all-or-nothing since the start. The situation improved slightly with Apex and the introduction of the RPG7 and open turret LSVs, however the situation remains undesirable. Let us walk through the issue in steps. On the vehicle side, the problem is: CROWS turrets mean that MRAPs, IFVs, APCs all need to be dealt with an AT rocket, as crew can't be shot out of the turret. Vehicles can drive by at high speed, and still locate and shoot players accurately An AI vehicle can very accurately locate the person who fired even a single bullet at it, making attempts of disabling CROWS turrets by shooting at them very dangerous. Given all these factors, it's only really viable to use LSVs and off roads and not expect people to die random arbitrary deaths. Of course, the AAF is missing such a vehicle. i.e. to quote a fellow community member, "I think Humvees, M113s, and Vodniks are more critical right now than carl gustavs [for the infantry game]". With Tanks DLC the expectation on the vehicle side is mostly limited to introduction of new tanks (and hopefully a more readable damage/armour model), so of course open turret M113s, BRDMs and vodniks seem out of the question. That brings me to the infantry side of the equation. On the infantry side, the way in which we traditionally have run our Platoons is with: a R(AT) being Light AT(LAT) integral to each infantry squad, expected to take care of everything up to and including wheeled IFVs/APCs at close to medium range. For tracked IFVs (and in emergencies, tanks) or for multiple IFV class vehicles, we have a dedicated Medium AT (MAT) team. To handle tanks, we use a Heavy AT (HAT) team. To quote another community member, in Arma 2 the setup went like this: Now the situation is really weird: RPG7 is the only Light AT asset available. Thematically doesn't fit NATO and CTRG, and I'd expect the AAF and CSAT to at least use more types of rounds (especially CSAT, if the argument were to be made that AAF has NATO stuff). PCML is on the heavier side of LAT, but has a medium range fire and forget system. It makes a dedicated Medium AT semi redundant if given to Rifleman (AT) units. While at times desirable, this limits the ability for us mission makers to provide NATO/CTRG/AAF with something lighter for use within fire teams. Regular infantry get a weapon with 500m range and fairly reliable accuracy and thus the only distinction between LAT and MAT becomes the amount of ammo carried about. The PCML thematically feels strange being a weapon system with a fancy fire and forget, yet having less punch than the RPG42. RPG-42 is a pretty powerful round and qualifies as MAT. One could argue that being a dumbfire projectile balances it out (and thus can be given to R(AT) units), however this brings two issues. First, it can take out a tracked IFV/APC in a couple of shots out to 500m, which fills the MAT role pretty well. The second issue is the same as with the PCML - the difference between LAT and MAT boils down to ammo count. Titan AT lies squarely in the HAT category. So in effect, for NATO/CSAT/AAF/CTRG there are only two kinds of AT depending on your categorization: LAT and HAT, or MAT and HAT. FIA and Syndikat manage to avoid this issue by having RPG7s for LAT and RPG42 for MAT. One could suggest that RPG7s be used for CSAT LAT too, but then we're at the point where FIA, CSAT and Syndikat have the same AT weapons, which can be thematically jarring. So what are the solutions to this? Well it's tricky without suggesting production of new assets but: The easy way: Introduce more variants of warheads. RPG7/RPG42/PCML could all use things like tandem warhead rounds, etc. The harder way: Introduce the AT4 and increase the lethality of the PCML (or at least, introduce a heavier round to avoid breaking the campaign ;) ). This lets us give LAT to AAF/NATO, while giving MAT a stronger warhead with the PCML. Introduce the Carl Gustav you guys have lying around unfinished https://www.artstation.com/artwork/5V03E . It'll let us differentiate the AAF more from NATO, i.e. AAF MAT could use Carl Gustav while NATO uses PCML. Introduce heavier warheads for both the RPG7 and RPG42. Sights like the PGO-7 could be introduced too, This will allow us to give FIA/Syndikat/CSAT a standard warhead for use as LAT while the heavier one as MAT (or indeed, HAT). That's all i have to suggest for now. Would be great to have any of this implemented with Tanks, since the last few years making missions has been at times quite frustrating because of the limitations within which we've had to work. Arma's issue with combined arms is less "needs more tanks", but more to do with needing a nice smooth infantry-vehicle interface when it comes to balance. p.s. Would be great to get the M4A1 too, AAF spec ops would be a thing then :P EDIT: Seems the Carl Gustav and M4A1 were taken down, but here's a screenshot of the discord embed. https://imgur.com/AjfgKgy