Campagn Two Suggestions

[[IRT]Super64]

While its still early in Campaign One, this is a good time to begin hearing thoughts and ideas for C2. This way testing can be done and fact-based opinions presented.

Please keep in mind these rules for this thread:
List the mod name, what it does, any relevant links and personal experience with it.
Screen shots or video links help.
AVOID lengthy discussions on the features in this thread. Threads will be created later to help discuss and vote on potentials.
Keep in mind, we're not trying to re-design the Tourny here. Suggestions that *tweak* and enhance our current environment will have the best chance.
Campaign 2 may include many or none of the proposed ideas. A lot of testing has to go into a mod before its used. As we all know, the ArmA multiplayer world is a fragile, lag-hungry beast.While I'd like to keep this thread a simple, clean list of suggestions... further discussion can be found HERE (http://www.arma-tow.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5969) on other ideas.

[[RET]Hooves]

well the Obvious for me are the
- BE-32,
- the ARMATEC secret wink wink,
- a script that allows helos and the BE-32 to drop ammo via parachute to troops on the ground
and finally
- A-10's and reskinned a-10 for the Ruskies, with either one Rockeye or Naplam bomb per reload. ( i mean come on its war and war has big damn explosions, trust me)

[Steveak44]

Revive

@Mike Re:ammo drop
Check out http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=2322 there is a link in that one with some demo missions. The ammo drop and strikes are cool. You might be able to get something useful out of it.

[Spyder]

I think what can really help is to stay away from add-ons that really don't make much difference. We need to use add-ons that "fix" ArmA and make it what it was supposed to be in the 1st place.

MLK Darker Iron sights/Weapons - Darkens weapons to make them look a whole lot better. They are easier to use and add realism.

NWD Add-ons - Tank fire control systems, scope fixes, and realistic ballistics for all weapons. Also includes a range finder for laser designators. This is what BIS should have done but were way to lazy to do.

Q11 Add-ons - Realistic recoil, weapon jams, and realistic ROF. Again BIS was too lazy to implement this, thank god people in the community are gifted with add-on creation :)

Sound mods - I think the sound mod should be picked on realism. FDF 1.3 really has the effects going on, but I think that chammy's will have the weapons. Maybe a combination of the two. UnPBO anyone?

[[IRT]36th|PVT.H00t74]

Remove all unit tags from Map..Friendly and enemy. I hate seeing the enmy on the map and vice versa..takes away some of the challenge.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Remove all unit tags from Map..Friendly and enemy. I hate seeing the enmy on the map and vice versa..takes away some of the challenge.
My vote goes also to this.
Add mhq kind of markers on squad leaders to make it bit easyer too see where the "squad" goes.

[Raptor-6]

As a unit commander I like the friendly map markers so that I can see where my guys are. It also makes it easier for the group to stay organized. I want the friendly map markers to stay. We already tried not using them back at ArmaI remember? It really was a cluster to figure out who was where and trying to keep unit cohesion. And having a marker on the unit commander only solves a piece of the problem.

[[7]45|JSgt.The_Jag]

1/2|Pvt.Dyson;56160']I think what can really help is to stay away from add-ons that really don't make much difference. We need to use add-ons that "fix" ArmA and make it what it was supposed to be in the 1st place.

MLK Darker Iron sights/Weapons - Darkens weapons to make them look a whole lot better. They are easier to use and add realism.

NWD Add-ons - Tank fire control systems, scope fixes, and realistic ballistics for all weapons. Also includes a range finder for laser designators. This is what BIS should have done but were way to lazy to do.

Q11 Add-ons - Realistic recoil, weapon jams, and realistic ROF. Again BIS was too lazy to implement this, thank god people in the community are gifted with add-on creation :)

Sound mods - I think the sound mod should be picked on realism. FDF 1.3 really has the effects going on, but I think that chammy's will have the weapons. Maybe a combination of the two. UnPBO anyone?

I Totally agree with Dyson!
MLK shouldn't be so lag-hungry I think, NWD & Q11 are a great improvement and immersion into realism. As for Sound pack I think we should set-up a kind of "sound-pack testing night" in which we use all the major SP (fdf, chammy, faarr, others?) in the same circumstances (let's say: try to shoot with each weapons, try helo and vehicle sounds, try environmental sounds and so on) and see what are the most suitable for our tournament via a poll!

[[RET]Hooves]

I liek thi sidea and if we can get a large amount of player sto be willing to try this we can do it on my or supers server to avoind the "server signing" of the battle server. Keep in mind however I do believe fdf is there for the remainder of C1 but C2 is up for grabs.

[{A}3|LCpl.7]

Mixing and chopping up mods has been tried before with ugly results. We got the engine running just fine now, lets not throw 10 more things under the hood. Addressing some issues like map markers, etc, can be done without severely impacting the server. Not sure about adding a bunch of full blown mods right off the bat though. No question we will put some of these through their paces during our Campaign break, but with Stability as priority over everything.

What use is it to have 5-7 undeniably killer mods, that we all love, used in the Tourney only to have you freeze up every 20 secs on the server during Battleday....or worse. Baby Steps...


EDIT: Although I have to admit, I would love to look through the XAM 1.4 when its released to use some of its killer effects, etc.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3qauz_xam-mod-trailer-14-english_videogames

Plus its gives us what most of us have been waiting for, a new place to play. The Integrated classic island of "Everon".

[[7]45|JSgt.The_Jag]

The Integrated classic island of "Everon".
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

OMG!!! Sweet!

[{Ret}Bond]

Originally Posted by Spooner
SPON Script Pack

- SPON Rangefinder v0.1.1 (http://www.ofpec.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=36&topic=30371.0)
Shows range, azimuth and elevation overlayed on the SOFLAM view- SPON RearView v0.1.1 (http://www.ofpec.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=36&topic=30471.0)
Rear-view mirrors for most vanilla vehicles- SPON Recognise v0.1.0 (http://www.ofpec.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=36&topic=30276.0)
Recognise friends standing next to you, even if friendly tags are off- SPON Status
Informational display clearly showing order-of-battle, group members and vehicle crew - coming soonOther scripts of mine that don't need SPON Core, but that include debugging messages that can be seen if SPON Core debug-log is used:
- SPON Attachments v0.1.0 (http://www.ofpec.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=36&topic=30607.0)
Attach/detatch ACOG and/or suppressors on weapons in-game (new)- SPON Kits
Standardised equipment kits - coming soon

[{7}21|Gef.Spooner]

Although I appreciate the advertising for my SPON scripts, your info is a bit out of date regarding links and versions:
SPON Status v0.2.0 (http://www.ofpec.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=36&topic=30607.msg209937#msg209937) and SPON Kits v0.1.1 (http://www.ofpec.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=36&topic=30711.msg210667#msg210667) have been released now for a few weeks.
SPON Rangefinder, now v0.2.0 (http://www.ofpec.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=36&topic=30371.0) - The primary benefit of SPON Rangefinder is that it is a script rather than an addon, which makes it great for using in missions you want to keep addon-free. Since there is an addon by NeverWonderDog that does the same thing (in some ways better) and you are a mod, so you are quite happy with addons, you might prefer to use the addon version.
SPON Attachments is now at v0.3.0 (http://www.ofpec.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=36&topic=30607.0)

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

Thank you for sharing with us Spooner, I think your stuff is cool. IMO we should use any scripts you make over mods from someone else. It has been our practice here at ArmATOW to have scripters and moders on staff or as close to our ranks as possible. As you are a forum member it would be fantastic to use your mod instead of Joe Blow that we don't really know :)

Are there missions in your mods that we can load to test? I am dying to try out

SPON Attachments is now at v0.3.0 (http://www.ofpec.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=36&topic=30607.0)

[{7}21|Gef.Spooner]

All my script packs come with test missions which should be both SP and MP compatible in both "editor folders" and pbo formats. Remember though that most of my stuff is still very much beta product (mainly because I've had virtually no constructive feedback on the beta threads). Sadly, I can't assume they all work perfectly from this, so if you do find problems, I'd appreciate hearing about them ;P

[{7}21|Burns]

wow and he isnt even an RGG member spoon lol.

I think we need to replace the US reskin Russian vehicles. Where is our Hind and other helicopters. It would be much cooler than the cobra, although I do understand the balance issues some of them cant be that bad and we still have the UAZ against a HMMVW

[[RET]Hooves]

The idea behind the cobras and m1a1's was to balance things out, as soon a as a bug free equal replacement comes out we here at AToW are MORE THAN HAPPY to make a switch pending some tests. The reskinns are stop gaps.

[{7}9th|GinSoakedBoy]

That SPON stuff looks really good, it's a shame the weapon attachment one doesn't work like Crysis :D

There's a good script released by one of the modders over at TG called 'Sahrani electrical grids (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=71;t=70373;&#top)' which basically allows you to cut power to the street lights by either blowing up the sub-stations or 'cutting' them, which could add a new tactical element to night-time battles.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

That SPON stuff looks really good, it's a shame the weapon attachment one doesn't work like Crysis :D

There's a good script released by one of the modders over at TG called 'Sahrani electrical grids (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=71;t=70373;&#top)' which basically allows you to cut power to the street lights by either blowing up the sub-stations or 'cutting' them, which could add a new tactical element to night-time battles.

This has been suggested earlyer also, well talked atleast.
I would love to see it. its small thing that dont "really" benefit, but it would give nice add to night missions.
"Cut the lights out and attack at the same moment".
Just hope it wont use triggers

[Steveak44]

Re: power grids

Since NVGs are standard issue does that mean you guys are also suggesting the removal of NVGs?

Will there be night battles? Are we starting the game clock from the end time of the previous battle, like the early ArmAI days?

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

For C2 would be nice feature that holding some object gives NVG's. if you loose it,too bad. Well you cant tho get NVG's in middle of battle, so it would effect on next battle..?

For time, i think the time moves on.
I have also requested sheet for times and weathers.
but i noticed over IC they did have fps problems when wheater was changed?

[{7}21|Gef.Spooner]

That SPON stuff looks really good, it's a shame the weapon attachment one doesn't work like Crysis :D
You are certainly not the only person to make that complaint/request. Maybe one day (but not soon)...

[{7}21|Burns]

I like the idea of each battle taking place maybe a couple of ingame hours after the previous battle. So there would be a rest between of like 4-5 hours and then just carry on so the sun position could effect fighting and we could have night battles.

[[IRT]Super64]

I like the idea of each battle taking place maybe a couple of ingame hours after the previous battle. So there would be a rest between of like 4-5 hours and then just carry on so the sun position could effect fighting and we could have night battles.


Burns, in the past we have noted the time of day at the end of battle and had night fights. Fun stuff.

[Steveak44]

RB|1Lt.Dren;56503']For C2 would be nice feature that holding some object gives NVG's. if you loose it,too bad. Well you cant tho get NVG's in middle of battle, so it would effect on next battle..?


Like what? Dick's Sporting Goods? Cabela's Outdoor? BassPro Shop, maybe? I got it! Wait for it....Wait for it....WalMart!:D

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

yes i was thinking about walmart.

[[7]45|JSgt.The_Jag]

Will there be night battles? Are we starting the game clock from the end time of the previous battle, like the early ArmAI days?

That's the great thing ever since it gives the tour a kind of continuity through its battles!

I hope this is already set in tour1 also! Dunno.

[[IRT]36th|CPL.OV3RLORD]

1/2|Pvt.Dyson;56160']
Sound mods - I think the sound mod should be picked on realism. FDF 1.3 really has the effects going on, but I think that chammy's will have the weapons. Maybe a combination of the two. UnPBO anyone?

Well the M16 ACG GL in CSM couldn't fire any M203 Genades out and since our BFCO uses one i dont think he be happy. I have fixed this small config problem myself if any one wants it PM me.

Plus I could set out to get the sound mods FDF and CSM put into the one mod but i can only do it the easy way (change the config).

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

I am not trying to be difficult, but here are some thoughts.

The USMC heavily uses the LAV-25 and not the Stryker which is an Army Vehicle. I have not seen a mod for the LAV-25 and would consider this a low priority change to the campaign, but I think we should consider it.

Helo: Again, not trying to be a pain but I am just "keeping it real". The USMC currently uses UH-1N Twin Engine Choppers for transport, not the BlackHawk (again, this is Army). The marines are starting to use a Variant of the UH-1 that will have "84 percent parts commonality with the AH-1Z"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1Y_Venom

The Helenic Wars Mod has what looks like to be a TOP notch mod for the Huey UH-1H.
http://ofp.gamepark.cz/_hosted/mmstudios/news.php

Again this is low priority but it would be cool to use the most accurate USMC weapons we could.


Russian:
Been said, but we would like to see a Russian Hind ( I know it is in the works) and see a more modern Russian MBT, maybe the T-90 which is said to be a beefed up T-80/T-72. If I am to continue with LA LA Land I might add that a Russian equiv to the Locust ( LB ) would be cool as well.

[[IRT]Super64]

Nurm there is one response to every suggestion you presented. Does the mod exist and is it well made and stable? So far the answer is NO in one way, shape or form with all the requests you made.

There is no LAV-25 or UH-1N Twin Engine Transport helo. Besides im not sure if im ready to give up the Blackhawk which is a US staple. And none of the Russian equipment you listed either exists as a mod or is of very good quality. Unfortunately.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

Re: power grids

Since NVGs are standard issue does that mean you guys are also suggesting the removal of NVGs?

Will there be night battles? Are we starting the game clock from the end time of the previous battle, like the early ArmAI days?
Yes. Battleday 1 started at 0830am and todays battle would have started at 1130am. Our goal is to keep it very similar to this unless the Generals want a cease fire for a number of hours to wait until daylight or even nighttime for that matter.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

To remind barmy....
*Bagable CRRC boat. What you can pick up from water to backbag and place it again on water when needed (my wish that it wont take any ammo slots)

*LD's to be picked up like "change weapon" on kit selection. So it would be predefined to any slot.

[{7}21|NoDebate]

-BUG FIXES! (An obvious one)
-Consider giving each team pros and cons, I'll make a large detailed post about it later. However, a brief overview would be just that. While the balance team is a valued part of this tournament, I feel it would make game play more challenging and worthwhile if each team had their own pros and cons. It would encourage each team to play on their strengths to augment their weaknesses. Something that may be worthwhile testing in a battle or two prior to an actual release.
-Boats, both big and small, and as was suggested before, able to pack away and redeploy. Fit it into the launcher slot?
-UAV drone support

[[IRT]Super64]

-BUG FIXES! (An obvious one)
-Consider giving each team pros and cons, I'll make a large detailed post about it later. However, a brief overview would be just that. While the balance team is a valued part of this tournament, I feel it would make game play more challenging and worthwhile if each team had their own pros and cons. It would encourage each team to play on their strengths to augment their weaknesses. Something that may be worthwhile testing in a battle or two prior to an actual release.
-Boats, both big and small, and as was suggested before, able to pack away and redeploy. Fit it into the launcher slot?
-UAV drone support

Many of these are topics of interest to me also, NoDebate. I'll be interested in the post discussing further details.

[[IRT]36th|PVT.H00t74]

Here is an idea... With that Powerplant scipt, why not use that and have each town have a "radar" that a power Station controls. If the opposing force knocks out the Power Plant the radar and town lights are down. To fix the powerplant, A side must use some of their alloted Allocation points to fix this instead of buying equipment.

[{A}3|LCpl.7]

Commando Helicopter Force Pilots!!

[Steveak44]

If you don't mod in the ability for me to do this I quit.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/Steveak44/funny/spetznaz.jpg

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

There have been a bunch of suggestions and some from me that I knew and know can't happen. When I stop and ask myself as a Marine Soldier in the field, what would make this experience better, I come up with very few answers. This is a good thing. So I decided to write my requirements for a good game.

1. Keep lag low - # 1 priority
2. Keep game balanced - I am ALL for having different equipment on each side, as long as it is balanced overall.
3. Allow for the most realism we can with the above 2 at a higher priority.

My Requests?
I would like the Infantry to be able to have different sight options for the weapons, similar to Spoons scripts. Aimpoint and Reflex are best as I don't think the Regular Infantry needs significant magnification.

I would like every MP5, M16/M4, and AK74 to have option for a sight other then iron sight and NOT a high magnification option for either side. Only a few sniper rifle slots on each side should have high mag sight. That's it. I think all else is good in the tournament.

Update:
I like the idea of ammo crates being available to drop in, I assume at a cost to the Army. If we can airdrop from Chopper or Plane that is cool, if not it would still be nice to parachute drop it in Evolution style. Whom ever had this idea it is a good one.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Eotech will released by (someone. seen on XAM mod and in SWAT units...).it would be nice new sight for US rifles. Would like to see that in our use.
Also Nurm if you havent noticed, you can change rifle only on US ammo trucks.

http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma_swat_14.jpg

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

Yes Dren that is a good point. The infantry has had standing orders to not allow members to swap weapons at the truck, that may or may not change under the new regime. :rolleyes:

[Steveak44]

Some love for the RedFor infantry:

Ak and pistol pack
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=2456

Maybe these will work better than the RHS stuff which I understand got yanked for errors. The rifles are my primary idea the pistols could be added for fun or just the ones that fit the armies.

I made local server with this mod and the TOW mod and it ran fine. I tried all the weapons and did not have any problems. I thought all the rifle models looked and sounded great. Most of the pistols looked great and sounded great as well with the exception of a couple (can't remember which) that had a bit of a sound glitch when reloading.

[Raptor-6]

damn they look good but here is a problem:

Note: This addon needs Queen's Gambit Official expansion to work

[Steveak44]

damn they look good but here is a problem:

Note: This addon needs Queen's Gambit Official expansion to work


I saw that too but I don't have Gambit and it worked fine. :rolleyes:

[Raptor-6]

I saw that too but I don't have Gambit and it worked fine. :rolleyes:

Cool!!....

[BazookaBoy]

but did you check your rpt file?

[Steveak44]

your what hurts? lol.

No. I don't know how.

[{Ret}Bond]

a suggestion for campaign two is to greatly reduce the amount of heavy assets equipped to each team, unless numbers per team player wise double.

two many times have i been stuck in a hidey hole for a great length of time not moving due to there being a overwhelming presence of Armour or Air power. simply put there are not enough of us on the ground to have a good fight and therefore get some enjoyment out of it, life for us at the moment is walk 10-15 mins to an objecive only to get wasted by a tank/chopper and then repeat.

I can count the amount of infantry i've seen in a battle on my two hands.

[{7}21|Burns]

that is true ^

[Spyder]

Everon was a blast to play on. We should keep that bad boy. NWD, MLK, and Q11 are just very small client side add-ons in need of a quick test to see if anything pops up on the error report. As for mixing sound mods, well it was explained to me that it was simple. FunTest went great today as far as map markers. Only issue today was the spawning of wrong sides equipment (ie US cobra at the RUS main). So I think it's time to add some more in since next campaign battle is January.

[Steveak44]

Anyone else see the US Cobra at Red Main? That didn't come up in the AAR. I'm sure that will be an easy fix for the mod team.

[{7}21|Gef.Spooner]

a suggestion for campaign two is to greatly reduce the amount of heavy assets equipped to each team, unless numbers per team player wise double.
Perhaps have some sort of heavy equipment limiting scheme based on current number of players, similar to the current kit limiting?

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

i would love that idea Spoon, maby limit it to 2 armored + 1 SAM on field same time

[{UN}Coolio (Retired)]

No need, if you want less hardware on the front you just increase the hardware price or lower the income from objectives.. but we only played one battleday so far and it might allready be balanced out pretty well.

[{UN}Coolio (Retired)]

- Reduce the objectives in play to a maximum of 4 at any given time.
This will free up manpower to do cordinated atacks and defensive maneuvers.

- Remove the abilty to netrulice rear objectives, as there are plenty of opportunity to intersept enemy forces making there way to the frontline.

Free stuff suck
Combat rock

[Steveak44]

- Reduce the objectives in play to a maximum of 4 at any given time.
This will free up manpower to do cordinated atacks and defensive maneuvers.

- Remove the abilty to netrulice rear objectives, as there are plenty of opportunity to intersept enemy forces making there way to the frontline.

Free stuff suck
Combat rock

True dat, Bra.:D

Take it by force not by the easy-bake oven timer.

[[IRT]Super64]

- Reduce the objectives in play to a maximum of 4 at any given time.
This will free up manpower to do cordinated atacks and defensive maneuvers.

- Remove the abilty to netrulice rear objectives, as there are plenty of opportunity to intersept enemy forces making there way to the frontline.

Free stuff suck
Combat rock

If I understand what you're saying Coolio, you mean to reduce the objectives to what shows up on a battle day map, correct? Meaning they are all still there for the full campaign, just the code is not there for that current battle, therefore maybe increasing mission performance. This would be a good idea to the mod team to look at. For example, in our current state, I could see Cayo and Eponia being "out of play" for combat action until the battle front moved up to them. But the army owning them should still have the ability to spawn men and equipment there to get to the front if needed. But I like the idea, its something we could examine.

@ Steveak - man the easy bake timer reference cracked me up. lol Ding! Ok we're done! haha I know what you mean though. But wasn't that one of the big problems we had back at ArmAI? With objectives being taken too quickly it became a flag-grab race. An entire campaign could end on a Sunday if all it took was clearing enemy forces from the flag radius then moving on to the next. There has to be some restriction to slow the pace a bit. Im all for keeping things moving quickly. But in the balance act that is our war, we don't want it to take longer to get men and equipment back to the front than it does for the other army to take every objective in their path. (did that make sense? lol)

[Steveak44]

I think I understand and agree. The last thing I want is a flag race worse than the current one or a one-day campaign.

Along Coolio's 4 flag thought path... If it was possible have a map like our current one with a lot of objectives but to make a smaller number of captureable (is that a word? lol. It is now!) flags then as they are captured other flags would open up to being captured and those farther from the front would close to being captured. Maybe add more spawn points or MHQs or a short timer before the next flag opens to avoid an army from getting rolled up in one day.

[{UN}Coolio (Retired)]

MAW|LtGen.Super64;57611']If I understand what you're saying Coolio, you mean to reduce the objectives to what shows up on a battle day map, correct? Meaning they are all still there for the full campaign, just the code is not there for that current battle, therefore maybe increasing mission performance. This would be a good idea to the mod team to look at. For example, in our current state, I could see Cayo and Eponia being "out of play" for combat action until the battle front moved up to them. But the army owning them should still have the ability to spawn men and equipment there to get to the front if needed. But I like the idea, its something we could examine.

Id like to keep the battlefield dynamic doing the battle.. with the possibility of the frontline shifting, just like it is now. Problem with the current campaign map is that there is to many damn flag that can be attacked. Take the upcoming "battleday 2" as an example. 4 satellite objectives in Corazol + 2 linked objectives + 4 satellite objectives in Dolores. Thats 10 objectives "in play" and that number could grow to 12* if both sides take satellite objectives in Corazol and Dolores bringing the town objectives into play as well.

Id like that number to be maximum 4 for the next campaign.

*add to that number the rear objectives that can be neutralized - affect supplies line and/or forwardspawn capability. The only way a "neutraliz mission" can fail (lol) is if the SF transport pilot crashes to desktop. There a no conection between effort and damage done when it comes to rear objective neutralization. Never has been. The AI solution has clearly failed so unless the feature is reworked Ill be happy to pay for funaril and dance on its grave. That event might be the first good memory Ill have associated with "rear neutralization".

[[IRT]Super64]

You know ive always thought why not make Main objectives such as Corazol, Dolores and Bagango only have 3 satellites. That way each army would rush in and take one, forcing the 3 to be bitterly fought over in order to unlock the main objective. I do agree having 4 satellites is almost too many. Even with our growing numbers!

Concerning the forward spawning linking objectives; I too am coming around to maybe the are more pain than they're worth. I love the idea of them. But Im starting to feel it disrupts from the true focus of what our battle days are... which is forcing engagements at the fronts.

[[2]1st|Cpl.Fallenblade]

I was wondering maybe to have the ability to dig trenches or anything like that, so we can defend bases or camps better and dig in.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

http://www.kolumbus.fi/dren/something.jpg
how about some recon love?

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

[2MEF]MAW|LtGen.Super64 You know ive always thought why not make Main objectives such as Corazol, Dolores and Bagango only have 3 satellites. That way each army would rush in and take one, forcing the 3 to be bitterly fought over in order to unlock the main objective. I do agree having 4 satellites is almost too many. Even with our growing numbers!

Concerning the forward spawning linking objectives; I too am coming around to maybe the are more pain than they're worth. I love the idea of them. But Im starting to feel it disrupts from the true focus of what our battle days are... which is forcing engagements at the fronts Super I could not agree with you more, now we have had 2 battle days in the campaign to try some of this out. 3 plus the main might be a magical formula, and I like the link objectives I am not sure about them though.

My biggest issue is back capping. To use our current battle as an example, once the Russians rolled past Corozol and into Dolores it appears ( I could be wrong) that until the US takes back Dolores they cannot do anything to the Russians behind the "Front Line" except neutralize flags, and neutralizing flags seems to do little or nothing. It feels like the defender ( US in this case ) is FORCED to fight on the front line only, otherwise they just neutralize back zones. The Attacker ( Russia ) is able to go past the defenders front line though, and turn enemy zones. Our system allows for the Attacker to attack behind the front line but not the defender, unless I am missing something.:cool: An example is one of the links to Dolores, the water tower, was neutralized after the Russians were in Dolores. There were plenty of soldiers and plenty of time to Cap it, however as it is no longer "Front Line" it is a an objective that can only be neutralized. This does not allow the Defender the ability to push back the attacker from a rear attack (back cap) , you are forced to do a frontal assault. The last war that was nearly all frontal assaults ended in 1918.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

There was a post back a bit about having pros and cons for each side so "they" can play to their strength and "we" can play to their weakness and vice versa.

This brings me to a very confusing part of the setup and that is the tanks and attack helicopters. I understand the desire of balance in the teams, but balance does not necessarily mean the exact same (a 1 kg ball can be balanced by 2 x .5 kg balls). I have heard that the T72 sucks, which is why the Reds have M1A1s, but why do they also have AH1s? Is it the same reason or is it that people don't like to fly the KA?

Personally since there is much talk of realism (I very much like realism), the Red Team should only gets Red Team items and the same for Blue. The pro/con here is to make the T72 cheaper to buy than the M1 (which it is in RL). The balance is that the "weaker" or "lesser" asset is cheaper to buy for the owning team. Not cheap enough for a 2-1 ratio, but enough for maybe 3-2 or 4-3, something to offset the combat power differential.

My main motivation for this is that it is confusing as hell when I hear a M1 or AH1 and dance in happiness for the support only to be gunned down. You see, they sound the same and this is a major downside for the Blue Team (this also goes with the comments of scavenging OPFOR weapons and causing confusion).

Again, I understand the desire for fair play and I am all for it, but the realistic immersion is lost with M1s battling each other (for me at any rate).

[Steveak44]

@those who want backcapping back

You might have heard that this tourney was started by a group of players from another tourney that closed down - ArmA Interactive. At ArmAI we had a similar large map and numbers comparable to what we have now and open objectives. We also had almost no combat. For an example I'll tell part of my story, I started out as the CO of a line battalion on the Blues. We were defending and none of my unit fired a shot at anything other than butterflies or S.E.A.G.11s (seagulls:D) for the first 3 weeks of a campaign and if I remember right we played 4 hr. battles. After near mutiny we got transfered closer to the front but we only had sporadic contact at best. A heavy contact day for me would be something like 3 kills and 1 death. The Blues had air superiority and the Reds were backed up. Then the back capping began. Units ran from flag to flag sitting for 10, 15, or 20 minutes watched it change color and moved on to the next and while they were at the next one they watched the previous one change back. Rinse and Repeat. A nice big circle-jerk. We didn't need weapons just boots and watches. There were lots of other problems at ArmAI but I think this was by far the worst.

Nurmdog: I'm not saying this is what you want but I didn't really see a suggestion in your post. I just wanted to put out there what the open objective system was like from this grunt's POV.

Currently Backcapping does have an effect it disrupts the spawn and resource chain. I can see strategic and tactical purposes to backcapping. Unfortunately, there are inadequate number of players to make attacking or defending these back flags any fun. Well, unless you just like running thru the E-Woods and then resting for a while or sitting around watching E-Grass grow. (I could take the dog for a walk or watch my real grass grow without pissing off the wife by playing video games on Sunday).

Now our current system may not be optimized yet but it is ten times more fun than what we had.

I hope nobody gets their panties all bunched by this post 'cause I'm not shooting negative waves at anyone. Backcapping in ArmA tourney play is my worst nightmare and I needed to spout off a bit about it. I think backcapping ability done wrong is one of the greatest threats to fun gameplay at out current number of players and AI. Just be careful with it.

[Wolf]

Steveak44 is totally right except for one thing, the battles were 8 hours long!

At AmraI the first 2 8hr battles days I didn't fire a shot!

The battle area was so big and so open that we troops were moved about by the commanders like chess pieces, and many tactics and techniques were developed to optimise getting the clock ticking for capping an objective and the second it turned, moving on to the next. Sometimes it got exciting, like when we would get airlifted onto the roof of Hotel to sit there for 15 mins before being airlifted to another objective. (those were the 'good' ones for the rest it would be a day of walking).

There were moments of intense fighting, but as the tourney 'progressed' contact between the 2 sides outside the battles seemed to be discoraged and we lost a lot of good people from the Red and Blue side who if they were in this tourney right now would be loving every min of it and contributing much to the community and tournament.

As a player on the US side we were given the impression that the Reds were a winging bunch of not very good players who couldn't keep any organization together or retain their people.

It was only near the end of the tourneys life (though we didn't know that at the time) that some of us Blues talked with the Reds and played a few pub games against them that I for one, found out just how good they were (I got my arse SERIOULEY kicked by the likes of Cooli0 and Co).

I say this as a tanker (and as someone who has gone Red in a T72 to get the experiance from the other side) The BIS T72 is in no way a match for the M1A1, end of story. It don't matter how many T72's you give the Red's, if you have good tankers on both sides the M1A1 is going to win. And after 4 weeks of this the Red tanker is going to go somewhere else to play (and who could blame him).

Same with the attack choppers, the Cobra has more advantages over the KA50.

Also remember that having the same MBT and Attack Choppers for both sides is an interim solution....its not for ever. You can be sure that as soon as a workable alternative is found/produced it will be tested/evaluated and if suitable implimented.

Have patiance young Skywalker! This tourney is already the best thing there is in ArmA and it's developing organically (think of me as part of the fertiliser) with all players being able to give their time and input into what it will eventually be, remember that us ArmaI vets have been waiting a LONG time.

[[IRT]36th|CPL.OV3RLORD]

My main motivation for this is that it is confusing as hell when I hear a M1 or AH1 and dance in happiness for the support only to be gunned down. You see, they sound the same and this is a major downside for the Blue Team (this also goes with the comments of scavenging OPFOR weapons and causing confusion).

Well my idea is if we chould change the engine nosies over to those vechs. ei. Russian M1A1 use the sounds of an T-72 and the Russian Cobra uses the sounds of the KA-50. As sounds do play a big role in real life and I belive this also should be repocated in this tourney. The paint job only works if you can see the vech and most of the time you want to be able to hear if it is friendly or not. Not to see it and get your face blown to pices!

[BazookaBoy]

Although I am old and my memory is not so good I thought that the Russian Cobra was already using the KA50 sound. It would certainly be worth us confirming this. At the moment whenever I see a Cobra I know it's either the US or Jimmy, either way I duck :D (just kidding Jimmy you know we love you really).

Changing the noise on the Russian M1A1 would also be a good idea, I think that you're correct in the fact this is currently the same on both sides. We are keeping and eye on the addon forums just waiting for a Hind or T90 and as soon as we can show that they don't crash the server as the first Hind we tried did, we will be looking to implement it. Nobody is aiming for mirror image balance between the two sides, but neither side should be handicapped either.

I think the 'back capping' issue is something that needs its own debate. But there is nothing stopping you attacking an enemy from the back of the front line, you can ambush troops vehicles moving up, you could launch a full on assault from behind if you wish. What I believe we are currently trying to find the solution for is giving the 'behind the enemy lines' type missions which can affect the enemy. But in a way that would not required them to keep half their forces in the rear on the off chance they may be attacked there.

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

Russian AH1 does sound like a KA50, I often duck my head WAY before I can see it in battle as I can hear it. I know Jimmy the Dart is after, Love ya bro!

BB, Steaveak, and all, my issue with Back capping is as follows and if I am wrong please correct me. Now that I have your attention my suggestion is included. :)

Using the current map after Week 2, If the US Caps or Neutralizes both Hill 82 and the water tower nothing happens. It would seem that if the Russians lost the linking objectives between Corozal and Dolores that they should no longer be able to spawn in Dolores as their lines have been cut, they do not have a "Safe" path between the two towns. This is my suggestion on how to keep the action close, it is still a linking objective to Dolores, just on the back side of Dolores. This would allow the "Front Line" to always be the major town under fight ( 5 zones) and the linking objectives in both directions ( 4 zones). All zones are generally within 100s of meters of each other, and it allows a proper rear attack or flank attack that is close by and is still effective. If this were to happen the Russians would still defend Dolores and counter attack those 2 hills at the same time. During that time the US would still be attempting to do the opposite, attack Dolores and defend those 2 links. There would still be front line battles and now butterfly collecting.

As it stands now if the US were to attack 82 or Water Tower it would mean nothing and the Russians would say, who cares. In addition, as I stated before, currently the ONLY choice available to the US to take back Dolores is a direct attack. It would be nice to have the choice to direct attack or to flank attack and cause SOME pain to the back side.:)

[{7}21|Burns]

just because you tried to do that in the last battle and got confused.

just joking. but I dont think it needs to change, currently we have a lot of action and there is plenty of oppurtunity to cut the rear lines. If the Russians wanted a vehicle it would have to be spawned all the way at the back base. Meaning a well placed ambush anyway across Sahrani would destroy it. Same with approaching infantry. Unless there is an MHQ in the front line town then you can cut off reinforcements with a good sniper or a squad.

The reason we got Dolores so easy was that we got three satellites and the middle point without any resistance. It was only after that the US turned up for a fight. With back capping then all fighting would be like this. Which although a great benefit to us was a bit boring for about half an hour.

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

Hmm, we were under the impression you were now allowed to spawn in both Corozal and Dolores.

[BazookaBoy]

That is not correct Nurm

Firstly there is no forward spawning ability in Corazol at all, regardless of who holds what.

Secondly to be able to use forward spawn ability at a major objective which has that capability (Cayo, Dolores, Bagango, Eponia) you must hold the major objectives and all of it's linking objectives. Therefore even before you neutralised Water Tower we were not able to forward spawn at Dolores because we did not hold Tiberia Bridge.

On a side note, pre-placement is different from the ability to forward spawn. With pre-placement, if you own any major objective (Cayo, Dolores, Corazol, Bagango, Eponia) and at least three of its satellites, you may begin a battle day with 3 vehicles and 9 men within the zone of that major objective.

Looking at at your suggestion Nurm but I think I need a few screenshots to better explain the agreement recently made by the generals regarding back capping.

[BazookaBoy]

OK there was a little confusion last week but a verbal agreement was made between the generals. To put it into words (all be it mine)

"The area in which you may attempt to capture/neutralise objectives is between the two closest major objectives held by each army including the satellites of those major objectives."

A picture is worth a thousands words so as we finished last week either side is allowed to attempt to capture or neutralise any objective within the yellow outline.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/1900/aoo1hp3.jpg

This does not mean you cannot kill a soldier or vehicle outside of the yellow outline, it doesn't mean you cannot travel through an objective outside of the yellow outline, but you should not attempt to capture or neutralise any objective outside of that yellow boundary. So 12 objectives are still in play and viable plus you can disrupt the enemy by setting ambushes behind their lines.

Obviously things may change in the battle. If for example the US took Dolores the new yellow boundary would be

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/2950/aoo2pu5.jpg

Hopefully you can see that this is a reasonable temporary trade off being a wide area to attack, a small area to concentrate the bulk of the fighting until a better all round solution can be worked out

[[IRT]Super64]

This does make it much more clear. Thanks Baz. But one question. Doesn't Hill 82 just outside Ortego control forward spawning at Dolores? If so, it would seem unfair that the russians could cap hill 148 and break forward spawning at Cayo for the US, but the US cannot break forward spawning at Dolores... all in the same battle.

[BazookaBoy]

To be able to forward spawn at Cayo you must own the objectives circled in green

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/1659/fscayoqh7.jpg

To be able to forward spawn at Dolores you need to own all of the objectives circled in green

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8356/fsdoloresfl5.jpg

So you'll see that it is possible to break the Dolores forward spawn in both scenarios and because Cayo is effectively on the 'edge' of the us map it had less neighbours and is therefore easy to defend against forward spawn breaking than Dolores

[[IRT]Super64]

So we should be able to attack Hill 82 and Ortego Water Tower. I know your goals are to keep an army from having to spread guys all over the map, which is good. But I hardly see how creating a scenario where one army can break the others forward spawning, but the objectives needed by the other army are "off limits" for that week. I know the map objectives may need a little work for the next campaign but this current idea is seriously imbalanced.

[BazookaBoy]

Which scenario are you talking about? When the US hold just Cayo?

Why would you need to take Hill82 or Water Tower? If the US took Hill148, Tiberia Bridge, or even neutralised Dolores or any of it's satellites they break the Russian spawn in Dolores.

Plus you need to have one of Hill148, Tiberia Bridge anyway before you are able capture Dolores Satellites, which you would hopefully be trying to do in order to push the Russians back across the map.

[[IRT]Super64]

Ok I was thinking you were saying the US would need Hill 82 and water tower to break forward spawning at dolores. Which both of those are "off limits" in this battle.

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

Understood, Thank you Bazooka Boy. One last question, you said


Why would you need to take Hill82 or Water Tower? If the US took Hill148, Tiberia Bridge, or even neutralised Dolores or any of it's satellites they break the Russian spawn in Dolores. However you previously stated,


Firstly there is no forward spawning ability in Dolores at all, regardless of who holds what. Don't want to sound like I am being rude here, but which is correct? Can the Russians spawn in Dolores currently? Can they spawn if they take all objectives?

I think all of the rest of it is clear. Thank you.

[BazookaBoy]

Apologies that was a typo and meant to read

"Firstly there is no forward spawning ability in Corazol at all, regardless of who holds what."

I've corrected that post.

[BazookaBoy]

MAW|LtGen.Super64;58536']Ok I was thinking you were saying the US would need Hill 82 and water tower to break forward spawning at dolores. Which both of those are "off limits" in this battle.

No, to enable the ability to forward spawn you need all the neighbours e.g
Hill 82 and water tower, Dolores and its satellites, Tiberia Bridge and hill148. To break that ability you need just one of them

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

Thank you Bazooka Boy, I understand now.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Add possibility in MHQ to spawn back to base.

[[IRT]36th|CPL.OV3RLORD]

yeah i second that Dren to make the MHQ like the map boards back at HQ considering they are MHQ's not forward respawn points.

[Steveak44]

Or better yet we could get these
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/Steveak44/StarTrek/thumbnailCAYM9I4E.jpg

to call Scotty to beam us anywhere on the map
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/Steveak44/StarTrek/star_trek0.jpg

maybe some new Russian uniforms
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/Steveak44/StarTrek/thumbnailCAOEXE9S.jpg

and weapons
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/Steveak44/StarTrek/StarTrekPhaser_image2.jpg

Don't forget the new Russian attack bird
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/Steveak44/StarTrek/thumbnailCAZ1X6MW.jpg

Here is some ingame footage
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/Steveak44/StarTrek/thumbnailCA24DOSC.jpg
Balance will not be a problem.

Basically, I think the idea is
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/Steveak44/StarTrek/thumbnailCAU4AVVG.jpg

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/Steveak44/StarTrek/thumbnailCAI9D7Q3.jpg Live long and prosper

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

i think someone has gotten beamed too much...
Still i want possibility to spawn back to base from MHQ

[[IRT]Super64]

@ LOL Steveak!!!

[Wolf]

LOL Steve you are the best!!!


'It's ArmA Jim, but not as we know it'!

[[7]9|PA.ru!ner]

Also I would like this nose decal added to the Russian choppers please:

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k122/spork_00/ka-nosedecal.gif

[[IRT]Super64]

Actually that reminds me R!uner. And I ask this in all seriousness, would the Russians now like to return to the KA-50 as their correct attack helo? Ive always felt the Hokum was a very good attack bird but people always tried to fly it like the Cobra, which you cant. But if used correctly, its just as deadly as a Cobra.

[{A}3|LCpl.7]

Rotor test next week Sup to see if 1.09 helped. With what it did to Armor values, I cant see how it didnt help.

[Wolf]

Steve, The Shatner communicated with me in a dream and told me to 'crush you like a worm' for that heresy LOL

[{7}21st|JSgt.Protoman]

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=1650

Arma Effects,

Its a great addon that gives a more realistic feel to all the effects like smoke and explosions, the later updates on this mod is not so demanding on the client neighter.

[[IRT]Super64]

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=1650

Arma Effects,

Its a great addon that gives a more realistic feel to all the effects like smoke and explosions, the later updates on this mod is not so demanding on the client neighter.

We used this mod once already. Caused massive lag despite being a huge favorite with everyone. We are watching the latest versions to see if things have improved though. But yes, this mod is awesomeness.

[{7}21|Burns]

not allow any AI

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

seemly someone has got beaten by AI's? :)
Would you want to be the guy who drives repair trucks allday? or the guy who stands aboject far far away from frontline?

[{7}21|Burns]

allright how about only non-combatent AI like drivers and pilots (if you wish lol)

[[IRT]Super64]

allright how about only non-combatent AI like drivers and pilots (if you wish lol)

Burns the upside to the Arma-ToW format is the large battle field. The downside to the arma-tow format is the large battle field. lol The Generals AI are vital to helping guard currently owned objectives while human troops move forward on the attack. The AI also act as an "alarm" if they see the enemy or start dieing. So having some AI is vital to game play.

[EPO]

got this idea from Tactical gamer forum, using a grass addon to increase performance, dont know if its been mentioned already but would help boost fps client side, dont know if it would increase the overall server performance or not?

original post:

To quote Kegetys:

Quote:
Changes the vegetation in Armed Assault to use the 'very low' detail shaders when shader detail is set to a higher setting. This gives a performance boost without the visual quality loss of using 'very low' shaders everwhere, so normal maps etc. shader effects will still be used in vehicles & units.

The mod also modifies the Sahrani grass appearance and density for improved performance and appearance. Some vegetation textures are also modified a bit to make them look better with the very low shaders.
The download link can be found here:
http://www.kegetys.net/arma/

If you do not have Queen's Gambit, you will need to place this file into your ArmA\lowplants\addons\ folder once you have installed the lowplants addon.
http://dslyecxi.com/shacktac/files/a...sara_grass.pbo (http://dslyecxi.com/shacktac/files/arma/mods/sara_grass.pbo)

[[IRT]Super64]

EPO, have you had a chance to try out the BIS 1.09 Beta patch? Performance is greatly improved! Frame rates are way up. Id like us to try the final version of the patch before we did something like remove or reduce the grass. For guys like myself who have decent gaming rigs, I enjoy the grass, bushes and trees on the map.

If we still have frame rate issues after 1.09, id say lets have a look at the Kegetys vegetation. It does sound interesting. Nice find.

[EPO]

i only really play ARMA at TOW and since we stopped using 1.09 i haven't really had a chance to play it. Will we be going back to 1.09 soon? but my rig is outdated now, was a beast when it was new tho with my fx55 .looking to buy a new computer after ARMA 2 is out and the new intel quads and dual gfx cards are out,

[[IRT]Super64]

AToW will play ArmA at the most recent, stable, patch level. Meaning when 1.09 does get out of beta and is stable, we will most likely use it. It has a TON of improvements.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

EPO you need to spend more time in editor like i do.
Only MP game i play arma is AToW.

There seem to come alot new units now for Arma, Johnnys, Camerons etc..
To not be unfair we should wait something for russkies also.
But there seems to come some "bunny love" for the Vodka drinkers also.
Check these (http://cwm.servegame.com/) . With small or none retexturing we could take those for RU.
Still there needs to be alot of testing, lag, rpt errors etc..

[{7}21|Burns]

probably not for campaign 2. But having one Tournament in Sahkaka would be quality. Apart from everyone having to buy QG (its only like £5) I reckon a huge Urban battle using the same capping principles as this would be good, just with less vehicles.

[EPO]

maybe not for c2 but i recently read that IC-ARMA are working on a winter mod and it reminded me how cool the snow used to be in OFP and wanted to know if a winter mod would be considered for ATOW. there does seems to a lack on winter addons at the moment. there is a winter sahrani
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=1362
and some unreleased winter addons by topas http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=2174&d=0

looks like boss has already tried to get them from looking in the above forum.

[[DI]I|SSGT.Sprite]

perhaps we could have side missions on battle days for example a member of the un becomes a VIP. suppose the active area is corazol, he could start in Geraldo and want to move to a near by town/city/facility, one team could have to escort him (whilst still fighting the battle of course) and the other dispatch a team to assasinate him. The reward for assasinating could be the same as for safely escorting him whihc would be a point reward. This could make battlesdays a little more interesting.

just a thought.

[BazookaBoy]

That's a pretty cool idea Sprite

[{7}21|Burns]

that is a good idea. We could also have like sabotage missions or POW missions. If they only lasted for about 20 minutes to half an hour then players wouldnt be stuck defending for the whole battle and it could be used if a stalemate is created to inject some action.

[{7}9th|Maj.ArMaTeC]

1/2|Pfc. Sprite.;61009']perhaps we could have side missions on battle days for example a member of the un becomes a VIP. suppose the active area is corazol, he could start in Geraldo and want to move to a near by town/city/facility, one team could have to escort him (whilst still fighting the battle of course) and the other dispatch a team to assasinate him. The reward for assasinating could be the same as for safely escorting him whihc would be a point reward. This could make battlesdays a little more interesting.

just a thought.
its got my non vote lol love the idear man let hope the mod team makes this happen

[[ATOW]BarmyArmy]

Hmm

For the old Ghost Recon players, I've already had thoughts of adding SAR type missions. Tho VIP/POW assassination/rescues/gaurding objectives are also a objective type.

BA

[PuFu_]

There was a post back a bit about having pros and cons for each side so "they" can play to their strength and "we" can play to their weakness and vice versa.

This brings me to a very confusing part of the setup and that is the tanks and attack helicopters. I understand the desire of balance in the teams, but balance does not necessarily mean the exact same (a 1 kg ball can be balanced by 2 x .5 kg balls). I have heard that the T72 sucks, which is why the Reds have M1A1s, but why do they also have AH1s? Is it the same reason or is it that people don't like to fly the KA?

Personally since there is much talk of realism (I very much like realism), the Red Team should only gets Red Team items and the same for Blue. The pro/con here is to make the T72 cheaper to buy than the M1 (which it is in RL). The balance is that the "weaker" or "lesser" asset is cheaper to buy for the owning team. Not cheap enough for a 2-1 ratio, but enough for maybe 3-2 or 4-3, something to offset the combat power differential.

My main motivation for this is that it is confusing as hell when I hear a M1 or AH1 and dance in happiness for the support only to be gunned down. You see, they sound the same and this is a major downside for the Blue Team (this also goes with the comments of scavenging OPFOR weapons and causing confusion).

Again, I understand the desire for fair play and I am all for it, but the realistic immersion is lost with M1s battling each other (for me at any rate).

The balance can be achieved in many ways. One is by making the t72 cheaper, yes. Second, the US stryker is no match for a bmp2 (as far as i know there is no Bradly being used). Sum that up, try rolling with bmps and t72 against m1a1 and stryker, and the odds are very close to 50/50. It's the same with KA-50, and until someone releases a mi-28, i see no point in not using it. I know from IC that a good pilot can do a lot more damage with a KA that with the cobra - they don't fly the same way, but of course that needs practice.

About other stuff: i have read most of the 11 pages posts. SPON Recognition scrips is a no go as it lags the server like hell, and you don't really need it by using friendly tags. About the markers i think it would be good removing them (i don't think it's possible to remove just the enemy ones), as it is just too arcadish, making sneaking and identifying objects at a certain range quite easy. On the same note, auto-report should be disabled as well, as your avatar usually can spot enemies at "very far" without you even noticing them.

Q11's recoils/ballistics/jamming might be also a good addition for this tourney. I have been using them since the guy released it's first version and it's all pretty good.

I probably the only one that doesn't like the idea of kicking ppl from the server to even the teams, so i won't trough this here ;)

[{7}21|Burns]

I reckon if you had one bmp2 and T-72 v one Stryker and M1A1 then the M1A1 would still destroy everything.

[[IRT]Super64]

Yes we've long ago proven that the M1A1's are clearly the alpha dog of the tanks. The T-72 are just no match. Until a stable, well made T-90 mod or similar Russian tank comes out, expect to see the "stolen" Russian Abrams.

[{7}21|Burns]

Cant you just change the ratings for the T-72 so both tanks are even

[[DI]I|SSGT.Sprite]

I thought the same, copy the M1A1 config values into a t72 config.
Could this be done for the Kamov too? basically change it to use the cobra's armaments.

[[IRT]Super64]

Cant you just change the ratings for the T-72 so both tanks are even

Feel free to give it a shot on your own. Test it out, report back with the hard facts of your findings. Id love to have true Russian equipment being used.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

Well, it would be hard to say who would win if using a T-72/BMP-2 vs M1A1/Stryker combo. The Reds would tag team the M1A1 with the T-72 main gun and the BMP-2 AT-5 which will destroy an M1 with two hits of either or one of each. The M1A1 will take out either in 1 shot, the Stryker ATGM will take out either in one shot. The Stryker can only take one hit from either the T-72 or the AT-5. Add into that the main gun on the BMP-2 which can keep fire on a vehicle while the AT-5 reloads. As well, it can screw up the targeting on a Stryker ATGM by hitting with it with the auto-cannon.

The difference is that the Stryker comes in 3 "flavours", M2, Mk19 and ATGM so there is every possibility that the one met on a field of battle may not be the ATGM because of its limitations. The Stryker ATGM is not very effective up close, against infantry or small fast moving vehicles. This is the advantage of the BMP as it basically rolls all 3 versions into a single vehicle, making the BMP more versatile and lethal.

So I think the trade off is that the T-72/BMP-2 combo can be matched for versatility only by a M1A1/Stryker ATGM/Stryker M2/Stryker Mk19 combo (the Mk19 and M2 versions have next to no chance vs a BMP-2). The Blue vehicles may have more power, but they lack the multi-role capability.

I don't think the answer is waiting for a T-90, but rather having teams deal with the limitations of their own kit (you may be surprised). In the battles we have been fighting, I would not take a Stryker into the field but I would take a BMP.

[{UN}Coolio (Retired)]

Well, it would be hard to say who would win if using a T-72/BMP-2 vs M1A1/Stryker combo. The Reds would tag team the M1A1 with the T-72 main gun and the BMP-2 AT-5 which will destroy an M1 with two hits of either or one of each. The M1A1 will take out either in 1 shot, the Stryker ATGM will take out either in one shot.

Yet the blue combo in you example has the best odds of winning.


The Stryker can only take one hit from either the T-72 or the AT-5. Add into that the main gun on the BMP-2 which can keep fire on a vehicle while the AT-5 reloads. As well, it can screw up the targeting on a Stryker ATGM by hitting with it with the auto-cannon.

The difference is that the Stryker comes in 3 "flavours", M2, Mk19 and ATGM so there is every possibility that the one met on a field of battle may not be the ATGM because of its limitations. The Stryker ATGM is not very effective up close, against infantry or small fast moving vehicles. This is the advantage of the BMP as it basically rolls all 3 versions into a single vehicle, making the BMP more versatile and lethal.The Stryker ATGM`s true counterpart on the red side is the BRDM ATGM. The Stryker M2´s counterpart is the BRDM (MG).
The BMP-2 is a unik redfor vehicle.
The Styker Mk19, M113 and the TOW humvee are unik bluefor vehicles.If you insist on comparing the BMP-2 with the Stryker ATGM, then let me remind you that the Stryker ATGM has 4 rockets before it needs to reload. Its elevated weapons platform also allows it to open fire from a conseiled/protected postion. IMO the Stryker ATGM is not quite the front-assault-MBT-support-vehicle you are makeing it. The same goes for the BMP-2 and the rest of the light armored vehicle in this game. I dont agree with your theoretical (psssst he is just UN, WTF does he know) M1A1/Stryker or M1A1/BMP-2 combo setup, as I dont see it as beeing very effective doktrin. I would buy a second MBT for a combo as it would only cost 1000mp more than the 3000mp a BMP-2 cost. ;)


So I think the trade off is that the T-72/BMP-2 combo can be matched for versatility only by a M1A1/Stryker ATGM/Stryker M2/Stryker Mk19 combo (the Mk19 and M2 versions have next to no chance vs a BMP-2). The Blue vehicles may have more power, but they lack the multi-role capability.Currently bluefor can buy and loose 12 TOW humvees for every BMP-2 redfor can buy. The light vehicles has been ballenced out. I sertenly wouldn't complain, as a bluefor soldier, with the deal i got on the unik vehicles.


I don't think the answer is waiting for a T-90, but rather having teams deal with the limitations of their own kit (you may be surprised).What your suggesting has allready been test in a tournament environment like this in 3-4 hour battles, every week, over period of more than 6 months. Its not that the armys are balanced like they are now, because we think that the vanilla game isnt balanced - We know it dosnt work. The RUS M1A1 will be replaced by another model when it becomes available.


In the battles we have been fighting, I would not take a Stryker into the field but I would take a BMP.If I had been defending Cayo in the past weeks I would prefere the Stryker ATGM, but if you really dig the weapons combo of the BMP you should suggest this for the US:

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/828/br1tf0.jpg

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

when ever it comes out coolio, when ever...

[{UN}Coolio (Retired)]

RB|1Lt.Dren;61345']when ever it comes out coolio, when ever...

Released before 15.03.08 Wanna bet? :cool:

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Wanna bet that its in ATOW on 16.03.2008 then?

Btw im waiting for johnny to release rest of hes Marine addon.
Ill take it to my desk when the rest of it is released and test it.
Lets hope we get new US units for Campaing 2!

[Moody]

I've been dieing for a Bradley (and Kiowa) since the game came out. They (and the su-25...) shoulda come with the game in the first place but thats a moot point.....

I think the Bradley would be a very sensible and desirable addition to the tourney.

[Raptor-6]

MAW|WO5.Moody;61378']I've been dieing for a Bradley (and Kiowa) since the game came out. They (and the su-25...) shoulda come with the game in the first place but thats a moot point.....

I think the Bradley would be a very sensible and desirable addition to the tourney.


From a US point of view your position is certainly understandable. But how will this affect the balance? Right now the US has a light expendable AT platform in the Humvee TOW. The Russians have no counter to this vehicle. But we do have a BMP2 that the US side does not have, (as Coolio has pointed out). If the US were to get a Bradley type vehicle to match our BMP then I would suggest the the Russians get a light AT vehicle, or the US drop the TOW Hummer.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

It is the function that defines the vehicle and what it can be compared to, not the weapons on it.

MBT
T-72 and M1A1

IFV/APC/ICV (whatever you like to call this category)
BMP-2 and Stryker M2

Recce
BRDM-2

Light Utility
HMMWV

The variants of the HMMWV, Stryker and BRDM are all exactly that. Take a vehicle that does not have a weapon on it and slap one on or put a different one on it. Just because the Stryker and BRDM are wheeled, does not mean they are equivalent or comparable. The Stryker is built from a troop carrying chassis, the BRDM is not.

The Stryker is the latest model of the LAV family and is a direct descendant of the LAV III which is an IFV (TCV/APC/AFV), same as the LAV 25 and Mowag series. It has 2 missiles before a reload not 4, the BMP may only have 1 before the reload, but it has a 30mm cannon as backup and it doesn't take many to end your day.

The BRDM-2 is a basic vehicle that has many variants but at the core, it is a light recce vehicle designed for a 4-man crew.

The Bradley would unbalance the game (I think), unless you wanted to find and add the BMP-3. But if you were going to do that, you may as well add the T-90.

HMMWV can be taken out by a sniper, the BMP-2 cannot.

My overall point is that there is balance within the game with what vehicles are present, it is up to the crews to maximize the ability and capability of the equipment available to them. A good T-72/BMP-2 team can wipe away a M1A1/Stryker (any variant) team by maximizing this (and vice versa of course). Not saying you should pair up vehicles in this manner, just doing it as a comparison of vehicles of similar purpose. If I wanted to be really precise then I would have 4 MBTs and 16 IFVs (give or take depending on the task) charging down the field of battle.

I don't know the costs associated with vehicles in the tourney, but if the M1A1 and BMPs are so close in cost, I think that is a problem. The T-72 should be cheaper than the M1, the Stryker should be cheaper than the BMP but the BMP should not be so close to the M1A1 as it is not that close in capability.

The same problem can be applied to the AK series and the M-16 series, some people are actually better with one over the other. It has a lot to do with play style, not just weapons, armour or maneuvering.

If we were playing RACS vs SLA, then definately there would be balance issues.

Obviously we see things differently, that is just the way it is. I will forever be the thorn in the side of perfect balance. ;)

[Steveak44]

Leaving the crews and tactics out of it I can't fathom how anyone can think the vehicles balance. They would come close if the MBTs were not included. All the vehicles except the MBTs are one-hit kills with AT. The T72 is a one-hit kill with heavy AT where the M1A1 is not. M1A1 FTW every time. Please refer to the quote in my sig regarding the scenario where the Red win in the T72/BMP vs. M1A1/Stryker scenario. :D The only way that might happen is if the Blue M1A1 crew is passed out and does not wake up and respond when they are hit with the first round.:rolleyes:

Reducing the costs of the T72 alone is not an effective balance method because the T72 is still basically a one hit wonder. Yeah, red could field more but due to the allowed player numbers being equal they could only field more consecutively not concurrently. So you could not achieve the balance of quality vs. quantity which would be your real world simulation. All you end up with is T72 crews driving god knows how long from their base getting popped rinse and repeat. How many people want to spend 3-4 hours doing that?! Many of us already saw this in our previous tourney. I was on the Blue then and it still made me sick even though I was on the team kicking a$$.

[Moody]

Rap I think you've neglected the BRDM, a sniper proof infantry killer, as opposed to the Humvee TOW with an unguided (difficult to use in battledays vs a MBT) missile thats vulnerable to anybody with even just a Makarov.

Just for laughs mainly- has anyone considered trying to implement an M60 Patton? In OFP, they were fairly comparable, if not worse than, the T72. If I recall, the Marines still use them as they fit into 130's and can be rolled out of 130's with parachutes.


My wish list:

1. The new Mando stuff (with his blessing of course)
A. RWR and HUDs for helos
B. Mando TOW for BMP's and Humvee TOWs (a gorgeous system more realistic than the BIS POS
C. Laser gudiance from the Cobra gunner's seat. Trust me, it's not nearly as devastating as it would seem and would probably leave helos more vulnerable than not, but a nice option for both air forces.

2. Maybe, please, possibly, perhaps a *conservative* 500 meter view distance increase?

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

give us bradley and we drop TOW hummer.
Also i want mhq that can drive in water like russians have!!
or just rubber boat with tyres on it :)

Now we have seen how much it gives edge to russians that they can drive over rivers, and we cant....
So sup of our "no use at all TOW hummers"...

[[IRT]Super64]

MAW|WO5.Moody;61427']

My wish list:

1. The new Mando stuff (with his blessing of course)
A. RWR and HUDs for helos
B. Mando TOW for BMP's and Humvee TOWs (a gorgeous system more realistic than the BIS POS
C. Laser gudiance from the Cobra gunner's seat. Trust me, it's not nearly as devastating as it would seem and would probably leave helos more vulnerable than not, but a nice option for both air forces.

2. Maybe, please, possibly, perhaps a *conservative* 500 meter view distance increase?

I like most this stuff.
1. Yes, its VERY cool.
A. Yes, much more realistic.
B. Yes, this would be nice for the land vehicles.
C. Not so crazy about anymore. Has a high cool factor, but I dont like low accuracy at such a short distance. Puts the very expensive helo's in more danger than its worth.

2. YES 1200m is ridiculous.

[Moody]

Your answer to C. should probably be left to each army's (ok ok its the corp for the US...) discretion, and not a reason to object to its use in the tournament as a whole.

[{7}21|Burns]

If you increase view distance then some people will start experiencing technical issues, and it really is long enough at the moment.

[Moody]

The predictable arguement. From 1200 to 1700 wouldn't break most people. Most have machines that could handle much more. Can those that couldn't handle the 1700 not turn theirs down? Or does it not matter? Can the server handle 500 more?

And, yes, 1200 may be enough for you on the ground but your and our pilots could certainly use it, and likewise your and our armor, and so on...

[[IRT]Super64]

If you increase view distance then some people will start experiencing technical issues, and it really is long enough at the moment.

View distance can be setup to a map board, similar to the MHQ menu. You approach the map board and select the view distance that best fits your rig. View distances can be limited to whatever we decide. We could even have it go lower for those with very low end rigs. They could improve their game performance by lower view distance. And despite what people think, having a long view distance does not let people see the enemy at that set view distance. ArmA will show men and vehicles at just over 1900m. After that you just see terrain. No people. As THIS (http://96.226.99.129:81/Public%20Access/Software/Game%20Files/ArmA/ViewDistance1.wmv) video demonstrates. Watch closely at the distance marker and you'll see the BMP appear out of no where (test done using ver 1.09). But no one would be forced to play the game at 2000m view distance. You would have a choice.

[{7}21|Burns]

A guy called neon is working on a T-90

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/219/actualworkxd0.jpg

[[IRT]Super64]

Yes, ive actually been in contact with Neon. This is what he told me about this model:

actually the T90 is still A WIP ,i have to switch on several project each days ,i dont have exported yet into arma ,will be done when finish ,or better ,if you want a know a couple of guys who can export the model and make all the setup i will give it for free ,when the texture and optimization will be finish.

One problem is there is no interior yet

So while it does look very cool, its only about 50% done. Id love to have it here though!

[{7}21|Burns]

It doesnt need an interior none of the other tanks do.

and cant we just get a hold of it and finish it off ourselves. In that I mean give it to the mod team of course

[Moody]

It doesnt need an interior none of the other tanks do.

and cant we just get a hold of it and finish it off ourselves. In that I mean give it to the mod team of course

lol. yeah mod team get on that.

[PuFu_]

After playing my first 3h battle, the other two cannot be called playing as i was mostly sitting on "even bench" i have one primary suggestion: removing of the enemy markers from the map and the autoreport.
It is hardly possible now to sneak around now, the tank is way to powerful by itself so mechanized infantry to protect it is not a must atm, and makes thinks a bit too easy at squad level. Without them the squad tactics would be way more important, and the immersion would go to another level..
This is very easy to be done as it is a small config in the difficulty settings server side :)

[Moody]

I'll second that. It's a bit much, although Ruiner and Baz certainly enjoyed it yesterday.....

[{RET}Snake Raper]

Yes, get rid of the hostile map marks.

It is very exploitive to be able to "see" hostiles creep up on your men when you are 1km away, especially if you can direct them to the kill just by looking at the map.

The biggest disadvantage armour has in real life, is the lack of 360 degree view. An urban environment should be devastating to a tank without infantry support, but at the moment they can "see" us and drive over us or away from us. The advantage is totally with the tank.

I am not a fan of the friendly markers, but in game I can understand that they are needed due to 2D limitations on situational awareness. So they can stay, the others need to go.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

You cant just remove enemy markers, if enemy markers are moved, at same goes friendly markers.
This makes life bit harder for squad leaders.
But its ok for me also. Atleast we have the markers on the map (i mean those 1-1-G etc)

[PuFu_]

Regarding the Friendly markers: The guys need to know where the Ft leader is, not the other way around. Besides there is that round circle pointing towards your leader all the time, and with the proper slot layout, it's quite easy to know where you FT is.

That map marker, called for now West or East 1-1-G/I/H etc could be call Alpha, Bravo, FT1. FT2 or anything you'd like for a quicker readout.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

That idea has my vote.

I think it would encourage better comms and keep a team's focus on their task, not one 5km away.

[[7]9|PA.ru!ner]

MAW|WO5.Moody;61673']I'll second that. It's a bit much, although Ruiner and Baz certainly enjoyed it yesterday.....

Actually I didn't use the enemy markers on the map at all except once at the end, and that wasn't really for targeting purposes. The rest was all gaydar. There are some pretty good arguements for removing them as well as for keeping them.

[Moody]

You found me by "gaydar?" you mean the bis radar or are you callin me a homo?

[[7]9|PA.ru!ner]

I'll let you figure that one out. You seem a bit defensive about it lol :p

[[IRT]Super64]

I'll let you figure that one out. You seem a bit defensive about it lol :p

Its all "Don't ask, Don't Tell" here in the 2MEF. But in his defense, Moody has not yet requested a Pink Cobra.

[Moody]

Some may argue a pink cobra would be "FABulousssssssss!". Consider the humiliation of death-by-pink-cobra.

No, but really if it were possible I wish all of the BIS overlay stuff could be removed (i know it can't). The works: the radar, overlays, the "lock on" button, etc... If you don't see it, you shouldn't see it. But I'd have to take that case to Prague i suppose.... that'd be a terrible trip....

[[ATOW]BarmyArmy]

The other "realistic issue" is that the red-army is larger in manpower then the US army.

For a T72 to be effective against M1A1 you need TWO T72s enaging in combat sumultaneously which means they need twice the number of crew.

The reason we have the "Green" M1A1 and A1H1W, is that after we tried fighting a couple of tours with standard russian kit, it was agreed the the T72 or the KA52 just wasn't upto the job, and put the russian army at a serious disadvantage.

We are looking for a decent T90, which is a match for an abrams, just as we are waiting for a KA-52 to replace the green cobras.

BA

[[IRT]Super64]

just as we are waiting for a KA-52 to replace the green cobras

I have yet to hear of anyone, anywhere even considering creating this. So im not holding my breath. One thing I think we're forgetting to factor in is back when it seemed the KA-50 wasn't "up to the job", the Russian side had only one true pilot.. Jimmy. And at that time he was still figuring out flying in ArmA. Now, JD has improved significantly and the Russian side has several pilots who are capable. It is clear the T-72 is badly outmatched. But the KA-50 isn't the outmatched aircraft you want people to believe it is.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

lets make US version of Ka-50 also, and make it bit cheaper than cobra.
This way both can use it if they want.
(give russian cobra ka-50 sound, and US ka-50 cobra sound!)

[BazookaBoy]

I thought the Russian Cobra has the KA50 sound already. You Americans don't use your ears, to busy listening to your 'Rock 'n' Roll'

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

Great, and if we are doing that why don't we have someone update the values (armor, weapon damage, speed) of the T72 so they are equal to the M1A1, just make it a T72-AtoW. That way we have a Russian Super T72 that looks Russian but is equal to the M1A1. Having used the T72 in Domination the only thing that isn't equal to the Abrams is the fact that you can't use the GPS or a turnout feature for the driver, although I bet there is a config flag to to turn on the GPS and someone could find a way to add the turn out feature.
*Bump* I still say ammo crates that are dropped from choppers, parachuted in Evolution style, or spawned in forward positions, would be really useful.

[[IRT]Super64]

Having used the T72 in Domination the only thing that isn't equal to the Abrams is the fact that you can't use the GPS or a turnout feature for the driverNot true Nurm. An Abrams can easily take out the T-72 in one shot to any part of its body. The T-72 must place 2 rounds, dead center, to destroy the M1. Also, the Abrams has a stronger engine in ArmA. The T-72 will almost come to a stop when climbing steep hills, as where the Abrams will slow down but not as bad as the T-72. Its better in almost every category. But you'd expect that when seeing a tank created in the mid-1990's Vs a tank created in the early 1970's!

[BazookaBoy]

I don't believe we have found a way to alter those values in the config of the T72. Also an Abrams will destroy a T72 with one shot but the same can only be said the other way around if you hit the ammo store at the back of the turret

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

i will personally go an have a look for making russian m1a1 look like T-72.
Lets see what i can create in week or two...

[{RET}Snake Raper]

I am done arguing the Red kit thing (except for this last statement), it comes down to tactics and operating procedures. If something is weaker than something else, don't expect to stand toe to toe then complain when you die. If the T-72 cannot go frontal on an M1A1, time to change your armour SOPs and get into maneuver warfare. Time to tag team tanks with something else, be it a BRDM, Heli, Shoulder Launched AT or another tank. To be fair, the replacement for the Red M1A1 should be the T80, not the T90. Using the T90 might cause people to want an M1A2, and you would have to disable the ability to fire ATGMs through the main gun and on and on.

The M1 was designed in 1979, entered service in 1980, the M1A1 was in service in 1985. The T80 came to service in 1976, the T90 in 1993 (all dates subject to closer review). The Reds wanted numerical superiority, to combat this the Blues needed technological superiority, this is the balance. The T series was designed to sweep across the open fields of Europe in masses, the M1 was made to perform fighting withdrawals and survive. This is why the T series does so poorly when employed in the static defense, or isolated in ones and twos.

I have read all the posts and the counter-points, so this is just my last poke before we carry on. I know people are looking for a replacement, I know people "tested" it, I still don't think it matters. The Blues did pretty good in the last campaign with minimal to no armour for the last battles.

The ammunition thing I agree on. Nothing worse then having AA or AT run out of missiles and have to run through hostiles to get more (dying 99% of the time in the process). If we could use a landed heli to generate an ammo crate (a little more common than a parachuting one), or dump one out of an ammo truck, HMMWV/UAZ unarmed (more room inside) or M113/Stryker ICV/BMP. There have been a few firefights in the last campaign that might have ended differently if there was a way to get ammo to a forward area. This would emphasize the importance of a "supply line".

[Steveak44]

I am done arguing the Red kit thing (except for this last statement), it comes down to tactics and operating procedures. If something is weaker than something else, don't expect to stand toe to toe then complain when you die. If the T-72 cannot go frontal on an M1A1, time to change your armour SOPs and get into maneuver warfare. Time to tag team tanks with something else, be it a BRDM, Heli, Shoulder Launched AT or another tank. To be fair, the replacement for the Red M1A1 should be the T80, not the T90. Using the T90 might cause people to want an M1A2, and you would have to disable the ability to fire ATGMs through the main gun and on and on.

The M1 was designed in 1979, entered service in 1980, the M1A1 was in service in 1985. The T80 came to service in 1976, the T90 in 1993 (all dates subject to closer review). The Reds wanted numerical superiority, to combat this the Blues needed technological superiority, this is the balance. The T series was designed to sweep across the open fields of Europe in masses, the M1 was made to perform fighting withdrawals and survive. This is why the T series does so poorly when employed in the static defense, or isolated in ones and twos.


Manuever warefare won't work cause the map isn't really suited for it and the T72 is not more manueverable.

The other option you correctly stated is numerical superiority. So could you please explain how the Reds could get numerical superiority working inside a rule set that does not allow for it?

[{7}21|Burns]

We have argued the Russian Tank thing to death and everyone has decided it is inferior to the M1A1!

That ammo suggestion is allright but I thought that each kit had some AA or AT rounds on so if you need more ammo just ask a friend.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

Well to allow numerical superiority the rules would obviously have to change to be specific to each team, not just a blanket set. It would require a greater knowledge of the past trials and the creation of the current rules that I don't posses. Most of the answers I get are, 'the T-72 sucks we are looking for a solution, until then the M1A1 is what we are using'.

By maneuver warfare, I don't mean faster or better turn radius of a specific unit. I mean the alteration of position to gain an advantage, i.e. moving to a flank or "sniping" and changing position (even just 50m). It is not the driving characteristics of a specific class of vehicle that would dictate this, but it may change the options in terrain available.

The area of the last 5 battles was very suited to it, all kinds of terrain to use. My point is that the technological disadvantage of the T72, could be overcome by a change in tactical use. Could be, but maybe the game map just isn't "big" enough.

Now I will stop. I know I am getting some people all riled up, I just want to make sure that all aspects were considered before settling on the quick fix. Now I have argued it to death, and reanimated it, and killed it again. Maybe the answer is zombie T-72s?

The ammo thing is kind of up to the team, but the kits are pretty specific. If I want to open a couple of slots and carry an AT rocket, I can. The restriction is on the weapon, not the ammo (as far as I know). It is just a question of an individual wanting to give up something for this. The AA is a no go since it takes half the available slots (not too many people willing to give up that many slots without the weapon to show for it). I have found a couple of times that I was down to a pistol or scavenging, which can be hard if the only available weapon has a limit on it.

The use of ammo crates would allow some flexibility and sustainability to units. By making it so they have to be brought and not dropped, you are making it hard enough that the use would need to be careful. It may even be possible to make them a purchasable item (costing ammo only), to restrict them so there aren't hundreds of them on the field.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

I think I just understood what was meant about the "numerical superiority" and the rules. The rules don't say that there cannot be 4 tanks on one team, this is what I was referring to. I don't mean that the Reds can have 10 more players than the Blues.

If the Reds wanted to have 50% of their men in the Tank Reg't, they can, unless I missed something.

[Steveak44]

@snakeraper. yeah, good plan. Red will go mostly armor to balance the M1A1 and leave the rest of the map open for blue infantry to walk into.:rolleyes: I think Red has just found its next general! -7- you suck. Beat it you, bum.

We need to do a gear swap with standard BIS gear for a few weeks and let everyone get familiar with the opposite team's gear under tourney conditions. We are wasting countless hours on topics that have been decided a year ago based on the experiences gained in ArmaInteractive. Words are obviously not going to convince most people. They need to learn it first hand. It will be a few weeks wasted but it might be worthwhile in the long run.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

I had a huge statement that focussed on TTPs, the domination of armour and infantry over one another, and the skills of the soldiers but I shortened it to this.

Fine.

If this is what the majority wants, then there it is.

@Steveak44, different tactics require different equipment use. The trick is to find or create an advantage and use it before the enemy finds the weakness or their own advantage. When this happens you must change the tactics and maybe the equipment, to do otherwise is to lose. Be like the water in the stream, not the rock.

[[IRT]Super64]

Snakeraper, you sound just like I did a year ago. Then I realized no matter how you play the game, if the Abrams see a T-72 its pretty much dead meat. The Russian Abrams is one of the few balance changes I fully support.

[[7]9|PA.ru!ner]

Maybe taking the paa and/or p3d (forget what the extensions for the models and textures are) from the T-72 and mixing it with the Russian M1A1 would do the trick, creating a freakish frankentank.

[[IRT]Super64]

Maybe taking the paa and/or p3d (forget what the extensions for the models and textures are) from the T-72 and mixing it with the Russian M1A1 would do the trick, creating a freakish frankentank.

Nice idea. Frankentank. lol I have no idea if it could be done. But it would be just nice to have the US and Russian tanks have different silhouettes to tell them apart. Some of those night battles it was very tough to do.

[{A}3|LCpl.7]

Been there, done it ;). No Offense but quit trying to stick the Russian's with crap equipment so we are easy to kill, its not going to happen. I remember dealing with owners of a different tourney that had the same warped sense of balance and pretty much saw where that ended up. Russians get a fair shake at TOW no matter if Im Russian, US, or UN.


2 Facts:


1) M1A1 1984 Tank vs a 1971 T-72 is a no brainer.

I think Sup and a few others see it. Those that dont, prob havent fought in them long enough. The armor value between the two are ridicules which is the only problem. I could care less if its purple, green, orange, or shaped like a VW van. As long as a T-72 pops in one shot and M1A1 still takes two minimum, its not going to work. Low Silhouette as a T-72 advantage is irrelevant since good ol "command spotting" or the radar could care less. And Steve pretty much nailed the point about T-72 rabbit theory.

2) Cobra vs KA. Again, only one word: GUNNER.

KA flys great. Were not afraid of the KA cause it flies like crap or has vision issues. Well the vision issue is true but easy to overcome. I prefer flying KA as do most of our pilots. But again, 160 arc gunner vs a fix gun is another no brainer. Cobra gain's higher altitude, the KA goes back to being a flying deathbox.

Sorry, I usually dont reply to these threads, but just so its clear, I popped this out there. If your wondering how I know this for sure, year of experience dealing with these specific issues during another Campaign. Plus we spent a year combing for a Havok (or any non-buggy Russian Helo with a Gunner) and a stronger tank. Even last year, we saw progress on a t-80 and a t-90. that were being built; never finished. We had our modders do their best to change the default values of the T-72 and beef them up, which was our first solution. After several attempts and posts at forums, I was told several times that BIS default equipment is locked and its not possible.

I don't think theres a day that goes by that one of the Council or such doesn't check BIS, Armaholic, etc for developments. So here we are until options to alleviate those two issues arrives.

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

Nurmdog sees a dead T72 tank, pulls out a stick, poke, poke, poke...

Did NOT mean to start a tirade amongst the guys. Simple put, to my knowledge the Armor, damage, and speed values of equipment can be viewed and edited. Once upon a time Overlord posted the values of most armor in ArmA. As he seems familiar with it ( and is in the US Tank Battalion) I will get with him and see what we can do about making a test T-72 ArmA Edition.

Q: IF the T72 had the exact same armor, main gun damage, and speed as the M1A1 (and I mean EXACTLY THE SAME), would the Russians want to use it?

[[IRT]Super64]

1st|2Lt.Nurmdog;62018']
Q: IF the T72 had the exact same armor, main gun damage, and speed as the M1A1 (and I mean EXACTLY THE SAME), would the Russians want to use it?

If he can do what no one else has been able to, then sure we'll take a serious look at it.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

I think on some level I have been misunderstood. I am not trying to stick the Reds with inferior equipment, nor am I trying to make the battle skewed to the Blues. I am trying to figure out why they don't use their own toys. Most of the answers I have been given consist of 'it was tested and the T72 sucks compared to the M1A1'. Of course it does, the M1A1 was made to defeat them and every other MBT it would face. I don't deny that at all.

But when it was tested, was it done under "battle day" conditions? Was is just a range test (place M1A1 and shoot it with a T72 and vice versa)? Was it used by people of comparable skill? Was it used in something other than a toe to toe with the enemy? Was the battle such that each side had their own doctrine, or was it simply two sides employing the same philosophy? I want to know if it was played like a T72 fighting in an M1A1 environment or MBT vs MBT instead? Was it adequately supported by other assets?

Notice how telling me that something sucks doesn't answer these questions. No tirade intended, just wanting to know if all angles were looked at or this was the easy fix. If someone says that many battles were fought using every trick in the book and no battle ever ended with the Red side winning, then that would be a valid counter-point and end any discussion. If the Reds won half of the battles, the point would not be valid as it would show that despite the inferior tank, the Reds can still win.

I look forward to the day that balance can be achieved with each side using only their own equipment. As it stands, sometimes the only way to tell who is who is to look on the map and see the red icon, if we get rid of this many a blue on blue may happen (or tanks may move unchallenged thinking they are ours). Regardless of what happens, I am staying (I think I heard a groan (or was that many?)) because I enjoy the tourney. In the end it is a game and it is about having fun and that is why I am still playing. Red M1A1s still blow up as we have shown, I look forward to the next battle.

[Moody]

Two campaigns were played on battledays with the Abrams vs T72. Even with cheaper T72's, MBT vs MBT victories were always too lopsided.
The size of the map and nature of a 4 hour battle does not permit even the most clever Russian tankers to overcome their disadvantage. Consider even more the threat of air attacks. On paper and in battle the T72 is just weaker, regardless of how you play in ArmA.
Now, did we offer the 72's at half cost and try that? Not to my knowledge. But I doubt you'd find the US side not kicking in screaming.
I do remember this much: not only did the Russians HATE the T72 and stopped using it after each corresponding opening battle, but the US became frustrated FOR THEM and THE US -ENCOURAGED- the correction for balance. We became tired of not seeing any Russian armor.
This was not a hasty decision or a give in to Russian demands.

We've had a year to explore this and given what is in the community- what we have now in regards to armor and helicopters makes the most sense, so we'd best discuss other things before we piss everybody off trying to change things that were settled 6 months ago, and nothing new has been developed to change the equation. Yes it sucks they have US equipment, but it is the best option right now - period.

[[IRT]Super64]

Snakeraper like Moody said, yes it was tested under battle conditions. Actually they were tested every Sunday on battle days for about 8 to 9 months. Every Sunday on battle day, it was a butt kicking dished out by M1's on T-72's. Believe me, we'd love nothing more than to have 100% Russian equipment vs 100% US equipment.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

Thank you Moody for that answer, it is what I was looking for.

[[A]1|Pvt.Fly]

some how dont let the tanks bmps see inf on the map this will be much more real as all they got to do is look at the map and just fire at that pos. Its to hard as it is without them being able to see us...........

[[IRT]36th|CPL.OV3RLORD]

Heres a nice sound mod http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=2744.
It may not have cool sounds BUT it was made for 1.09 beta mod so we get sounds in vechs!

[{IRT}CSM.Cobra Eater]

XAM mod looks very nice, wonder what problems it could cause for server though with that really cool smoke, and splosions.

[[IRT]Super64]

XAM mod looks very nice, wonder what problems it could cause for server though with that really cool smoke, and splosions.

Only problem with the XAM mod was the mod team only made that mod for the US equipment in the game. Most of the North Sahrani gear (Russian) was untouched. Not much balance there! But, yes i agree.... its some cool stuff. Especially the radio chatter inside the tanks, the sniper cammo suits and the way tanks can pop smoke for defense.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

pingu's Claymores for tha win! (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=70&t=71815&)

[[RET]Road-Kill21]

MAW|MajGen.Super64;62209']Only problem with the XAM mod was the mod team only made that mod for the US equipment in the game. Most of the North Sahrani gear (Russian) was untouched. Not much balance there! But, yes i agree.... its some cool stuff. Especially the radio chatter inside the tanks, the sniper cammo suits and the way tanks can pop smoke for defense.

Don't forget the CD player in the UH-60s. Playing Paint it Black while doing an assault was sweet.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Would love to go with the real Season (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=70;t=71838)....

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

Damn Dren, that looks sweeeet! Not sure if it is 130MB zipped sweet though. a bunch of data for cool trees that make camo less usefull.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

btw im trying to find something to give russian forces also a bit "unic" look.
Here's (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=69;t=71884) small topic to watch for.
Converting those 5 first soldiers to look russian soldiers would be lovely imo ;)

[{7}21|Burns]

Cant we get the smoke screen on the tanks as our own mod. I reckon it would be really useful

[[IRT]Super64]

Cant we get the smoke screen on the tanks as our own mod. I reckon it would be really useful

Yes that would be extremely cool. I know its a part of the XAM mod. I wonder if it could be picked from their mod for our use? Also we'd need to test server/client performance. Because when players throw out a bunch of smoke grenades, server FPS drops like a rock. :cool:

[{7}21|Burns]

how about instead of russian LB's we get some Alouettes from the bush war mod

[[IRT]Super64]

how about instead of russian LB's we get some Alouettes from the bush war mod

Thats something that was also brought up by someone else. If its a very comparable helo (small, low armor, similar weapons) and is a well made mod... feel free to grab it, test it out and report back with findings. It could be considered, you never know. Our goal is to one day have each side using its own equipment.

[{7}21|Burns]

I jumped on and the Alouette II is about 30-40 knots slower than the AH6 but can take about 15-20 more 50.cal rounds before blowing up. Both take the same amount of rounds to destroy the engine. They are similar size and shape. I forgot to test if the Alouette II holds 4 men but it does not come with an option that has weapons, although surely that can be changed with our superior Russian mechanics.

edit: the Alouette does hold 4 men which is 2 less than the LB

[{A}1|PFC.Powder]

I would like to see a low grass mod(Something like, GDT Mod Grass) in the AToW-mod.
You can't see through the current grass while you are in a prone position and that bothers me a bit. Maybe it bothers others to, but they haven't thought about it.

[{7}21|Burns]

yeah that does bother me, as lying down kinda just makes you a blind target

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

FastRope's newest version!
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=70;t=70297
Hit it in!!!

[{7}21|Burns]

http://www.armaholic.com (http://www.armaholic.com/) has a couple of addons up at the moment. The stand alone ghille suit for both sides, the SLX mod which has some interesting new features, a Hind although I thought we had one its just gone quiet for a bit.

[{A}1|PFC.Powder]

Maybe we can use Mateck's awsome M1A1(HA) for the next campaign?
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=3141

[genrichkarlovichjr]

OK Something seriously eerie is going on here. Devs are actually listening to feature suggestions for their products and implementing them? Shenanigans I say Either theres a catch or you guys are awesome.

[[A]1|Sgt.Gunther]

It's how we roll.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Thanks
Keep in mind, the players are the Dev. So they see things from same perspective as players :)

[[ATOW]BarmyArmy]

Yup by made by players for players....

I am closing this thread, as the next C2 - as in C2 for Armed Assault II is due, and I don't want people getting confused.