Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mounted C&C and other questions.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mounted C&C and other questions.

    I just starting playing on the TG servers about two days ago and noticed a dearth of vehicle-centric action in the missions there. Unless that is by design and therefore large-scale tank/mech battles are taboo, I'm looking into making a few medium sized (15-20 players), relatively short (should take around 30 minutes, including planning, briefing, etc.) coop missions. There will be a role for infantry, but I'm trying to select terrain where tanks would realistically lead while infantry stayed behind until an obstacle or objective required their talents.

    I have some questions though, more tactical in nature: Exactly what span of control can the average TG leader exercise when fighting mounted? Do they need additional assistance (situational awareness aids, limited objectives) to handle the accelerated tempo? How much, if any, does this change if the mission goes from being straight coop to TvT?

    And I suppose my final, most important question is if anyone else feels a more vehicle-focused mission could "work" on the TG server?

  • #2
    Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

    Sounds good, i'd like to see more combined arms maps. I think part of the reason there aren't as many is because like the sniper positions, people who pick the spot just end up running off and blasting whatever they want. You have to make sure the tank or tanks are lead by a compitent group or they can ruin the mission for others. I prefer combined arms myself though, use to playing red orchestra with tanks in the realism unit i play with.
    |TG-Irr|LCpl. Soto
    TGULT-Roel Yento

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

      Perhaps a night during the week can be made to run vehicle oriented missions? That would be kinda neat to see aside from the large scale missions that really require players to lead with an understanding of ground tactics. I wouldn't mind seeing a little twist each week to mission styles.
      FORMER 22ND RRR/FORMER 1ST JTOC/ ALWAYS A TACTICALGAMER


      Spartan 4

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

        The AI vehicles are generally even more brain-dead than the AI infantry. Once they're faced with opposing armor, they tend to just stop and shoot. No moving to cover, no moving to a hull-down position, etc. That'd be my guess; the battles are point-and-click affairs, therefore are a bit boring.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

          Originally posted by LCpl. Soto View Post
          Sounds good, i'd like to see more combined arms maps. I think part of the reason there aren't as many is because like the sniper positions, people who pick the spot just end up running off and blasting whatever they want. You have to make sure the tank or tanks are lead by a compitent group or they can ruin the mission for others. I prefer combined arms myself though, use to playing red orchestra with tanks in the realism unit i play with.
          Good to read that I'm not alone in this.

          Originally posted by viper1986 View Post
          Perhaps a night during the week can be made to run vehicle oriented missions? That would be kinda neat to see aside from the large scale missions that really require players to lead with an understanding of ground tactics. I wouldn't mind seeing a little twist each week to mission styles.
          I wouldn't mind it either. I know, at it's core, ArmA started as an infantry sim with vehicles added, but I think it's gone a long way since it's roots and ACE expands things a bit further (since vehicles are actually survivable now).

          Originally posted by Gillespie View Post
          The AI vehicles are generally even more brain-dead than the AI infantry. Once they're faced with opposing armor, they tend to just stop and shoot. No moving to cover, no moving to a hull-down position, etc. That'd be my guess; the battles are point-and-click affairs, therefore are a bit boring.
          Roger that, something I hadn't fully reckoned with. It might take a little scripting, some out of the box objectives or an assymetrical setup, but I think I can make something that's interesting.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

            The only real vehicles I like being used in missions are the helos and light infantry vehicles. They're not entirely overkill and beasts and can still be practical to infantry.

            As for combined arms and all-vehicle missions, going up against the AI would just be painful, perhaps TvT?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

              Originally posted by Sigma View Post
              The only real vehicles I like being used in missions are the helos and light infantry vehicles. They're not entirely overkill and beasts and can still be practical to infantry.
              My first attempt is a USMC CAAT Platoon in a delaying action against a tank/mech force. Having trouble finding a suitable map, one with a wide open space that transitions into a viable chokepoint. Shoot and scoot from planned BPs, overwatch, etc.

              As for combined arms and all-vehicle missions, going up against the AI would just be painful, perhaps TvT?
              Maybe, although I'm not terribly confident I can nail the balance of TvT just yet, unless it's an absolutely symmetrical, meeting engagement style scenario.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

                my main complaint about vehicles in Arma is that they are modelled very basically. Theres no FCS for the MBTs or the IFVs that allows their weapons systems to be used to their real life maximum effect. You actually have to manually allow for drop and lead in the Arma M1a1, which is ridiculous at a range of 2000m. The Real life FCS has a lase trigger, which returns the distance to target, immediately applies cannon elevation and, if the gunner is properly tracking the targets movement will factor in the dynamic lead based on the angular velocity of the turret at the time of laseing. There is a mod that is very rough and buggy that does these things but unfortunately it isnt useable in MP. It could have been the best mod in Arma history if it had been finished.

                The other issue is the damage model is very basic also. you can actually kill a t72 with enough 50cal strikes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

                  Originally posted by chappy View Post
                  my main complaint about vehicles in Arma is that they are modelled very basically. Theres no FCS for the MBTs or the IFVs that allows their weapons systems to be used to their real life maximum effect. You actually have to manually allow for drop and lead in the Arma M1a1, which is ridiculous at a range of 2000m.
                  Zoomed out all the way, sabot correlates exactly to the bottom point of the main reticle. It's easy making shots at 1500-2000m as long as you have APFSDS available.

                  The other issue is the damage model is very basic also. you can actually kill a t72 with enough 50cal strikes.
                  You can't do that in ACE. Actually, you can, but I don't believe there is any unit that carries enough .50cal ammo to do it. It's something ridiculous like shooting it continuously for ten minutes to inflict enough damage, i.e. the tank is already out of action in some way.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

                    [QUOTE=Apocal;1202640]Zoomed out all the way, sabot correlates exactly to the bottom point of the main reticle. It's easy making shots at 1500-2000m as long as you have APFSDS available.


                    yeah but uhh thats my point. thats not how tank FCS work. I can make the shots too, that doesnt make it realistic :) The Real life Tank FCS means a competent gunner can lay onto target, lase and fire in a matter of 1-3seconds and have an extremely high hit %. Then theres things like TI, adjustment based on round type, main gun or coax etc etc.

                    oh and the IFVs can fire their ATGMs while moving. thats not realistic either.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

                      Originally posted by chappy View Post
                      yeah but uhh thats my point. thats not how tank FCS work. I can make the shots too, that doesnt make it realistic :) The Real life Tank FCS means a competent gunner can lay onto target, lase and fire in a matter of 1-3seconds and have an extremely high hit %. Then theres things like TI, adjustment based on round type, main gun or coax etc etc.
                      Does it matter when units only render at 1700-2000m at best?

                      oh and the IFVs can fire their ATGMs while moving. thats not realistic either.
                      BMPs can IRL, IIRC. It's only TOWs that are limited that way.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

                        hehe, yeah... once you play Steel Beasts, the tank combat in ArmA feels like using plastic toys (I also believe some of the in-tank sounds from ACE are from Steel Beasts... or trying to replicate them).

                        Having said that, vehicular combat can still be quite fun in ArmA. one of the most fun missions I played was as an abrams gunner in Macolik's mission Broken Line, where the infantry were literally depending on us to keep them alive from a horrible onslaught.

                        (P.S. has anyone else played steel beasts?)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

                          Originally posted by Homer Johnston View Post
                          hehe, yeah... once you play Steel Beasts, the tank combat in ArmA feels like using plastic toys (I also believe some of the in-tank sounds from ACE are from Steel Beasts... or trying to replicate them).

                          Having said that, vehicular combat can still be quite fun in ArmA. one of the most fun missions I played was as an abrams gunner in Macolik's mission Broken Line, where the infantry were literally depending on us to keep them alive from a horrible onslaught.

                          (P.S. has anyone else played steel beasts?)
                          Yes, I've played Steel Beasts and currently own Steel Beasts Pro PE.

                          I've also played General Carver's excellent 'Beasts of Steel' mission. I really enjoyed it, the distances were on the long side and the logistical issues a bit overdone, but it's a pretty realistic (if scaled down) look at how much more support is necessary to sustain an armored/mechanized advance. You're constantly having to convoy support vehicles, setup new FARPs, get the tracks squared away with ammo, fuel, etc., then pack everything up and move again.

                          I actually had a good time driving the ammo truck in one run, mainly because our first FARP was located lesss than 300m from a tank brawl with 8 or 9 T-72s against 3 M1s. Our tanks were destroyed and the supply train was wiped out, but it was cool for a good 10 minutes, trying to figure out how to escape with nothing more effective than harsh language against Russian armor.

                          About the only side is that I'm back to the drawing board for my mission, because it's really similar in some respects (mine was even titled 'Steel Beasts').
                          Last edited by Apocal; 02-01-2009, 12:59 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

                            dont get me wrong i still enjoy some armoured combat in arma.
                            Beasts of steel ive tried once and it was looking very interesting but we got waxed by the ai on super.
                            Arma (and now ace) do a couple things well: first is that you have individuals crewing the tank. that means theres human damage models inside the vehicle and that you kind of need more than 2 people to really run the tank properly. This is a higher fidelity in many respects than SB PRO PE (i own it as well) IFVs can take individual infantry persons as crew etc, again better fidelity than SB where the infantry are 2D sprites and arent directly controlled (FPS) by people


                            AFAIK apocal, the view distance is limited by 2 things: the user settings and the server settings. Assuming the server allows a view distance out to about 2-2.5km and the users are set to similar for their own useage (imo most people have theirs personal viewdist set to about 3km) Server default is about 1600m i think. so it does need to be changed /specified for the mission i think.


                            and yeah you might be right about the BMPS, i was referring to the tow/M2a2 specifically sorry

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Mounted C&C and other questions.

                              Originally posted by chappy View Post
                              dont get me wrong i still enjoy some armoured combat in arma.
                              Beasts of steel ive tried once and it was looking very interesting but we got waxed by the ai on super.
                              It happens.

                              Arma (and now ace) do a couple things well: first is that you have individuals crewing the tank. that means theres human damage models inside the vehicle and that you kind of need more than 2 people to really run the tank properly. This is a higher fidelity in many respects than SB PRO PE (i own it as well) IFVs can take individual infantry persons as crew etc, again better fidelity than SB where the infantry are 2D sprites and arent directly controlled (FPS) by people
                              Right.

                              [quote]AFAIK apocal, the view distance is limited by 2 things: the user settings and the server settings. Assuming the server allows a view distance out to about 2-2.5km and the users are set to similar for their own useage (imo most people have theirs personal viewdist set to about 3km) Server default is about 1600m i think. so it does need to be changed /specified for the mission i think.[//quote]

                              I'm not talking about view distance. You can set view distance to 10km, vehicles won't appear as anything except lock-ons at ranges greater than about 1700-2000m. I found it out while testing NWD's Tank FCS a few months back, trying to see if I could score kills at 5km. Easiest way to test is to set up a helo hovering in the editor with player as gunner. Setup enemy tanks at 1.5km, 2km, 4km and 10km. I am fairly sure only the first one or two will actually be visible at start, the rest will "pop up" once you're within 2km or so.

                              and yeah you might be right about the BMPS, i was referring to the tow/M2a2 specifically sorry
                              Honestly, it's not something I'm truly worried about because at anything higher than creeping speed (slower than Q) or absolute spitting distance range, it's very difficult to keep the TOW on target.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X