Increase realism on tanks
Changing BI's standard values to more realistic values, changing loadout and ammunition types. You know the drill.
Updated by CarlGustaffa about 7 years ago
Be careful about "realistic" ammocounts, MG in particular. Now, I don't mind some fierce tank fighting going on with more than usual sabots and HEs flying about. That's just fun :) But MGs are scary. My reasons for not wanting realistic MG ammo amounts:
- Easy to become the last
man tank standing, creating massive unbalance. If you know he'll eventually run out of ammo, playing hiding infantry is more fun and intensive than knowing its just a matter of time. Especially considering how tough they are to disable in the first place (when and if improved, if not already :))
- Mission lengths not corresponding to real life mission lengths for obvious reasons.
- If a tank has limited amounts of MG ammo, he have to adjust the shooting speed during suppression, as he would have to do in real life but for other reasons (see below).
- In Arma you can shoot indefinitely without fear of weapon breakdown or barrel overheat. It's already a problem for others (overheat "problems" are not high enough), but at least everyone can shoot back on them.
- You're not able to respond to a tank threat by sniper fire going for his sensory/viewing/aiming equipment.
- All commanders turrets now stabilized. Huh? What happened to realism?
- Problem free RWS systems for all tanks now. I've yet to see an exposed commander.
- No comm problems with tanks as in real life (outboard phone to speak with tank crew).
- Most other aspects of ACE increases the difficulty for the player, while for tanks only the good parts (and some unrealistic ones) are implemented.
Knowing differences in tanks should have issues on how you use them. Chernarus is not very good for tank vs tank warfare due to its terrain features, but great for support. Greater than real world usually due to lack of z axis fighting (elevated positions in buildings). Vanilla Arma2s M1A1 doesn't have stabilization for commander (for realism reasons as they say), and afaik the HC pack doesn't add that (nor any RWS). I agree it is a pain in the ass, but at least it makes different tanks have their own different tactical strongpoints and weaknesses that one would have to consider. It could also be good intel for the enemy to recognize the type of tank to plan his tactics against it. This added difficulty might actually help gameplay, as most tankers I see drives right into the danger zones thinking they are invulnerable. You use what you get, deal with it. For Warfare fans, pay extra and get a tank that has what you want. I like having tactical differences with equipment :) Sometimes a mission designer wants a "less tank" for balancing reasons. Diversity is good.
Then again, I'm not really a tanker, so I could be wrong.
Edit: Only real problematic issue I see with going for non stabilized commanders turret, is when having to deal with AIs, as they are almost never doing what you expect them to do or the commands for making them do stuff are simply lacking. Maybe if AI is gunning a tank without stabilization, you could have a "slew to" command that gives the gunner a "look at" command. Given this, he should now slew his turret in the M2s direction. That way you can at least predict what is going to happen next. Not perfect I agree, but it helps.
Updated by KingHomer about 7 years ago
It's still worked on.
Currently switching to a scripted armor system based on penetration.
Updated by KingHomer almost 8 years ago
- Target version changed from 395 to 1.0.0
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
This is completed.