Boogie Van

The smoke/dust trail is seriously over the top in every way. And oddly enough, dust-plumes from shot impacts are freaking tiny. You'd expect it to be the exact opposite with all the dust kicked up from rolling around!

Regarding tank capabilities/hit-boxes, see this post: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1509456&postcount=28 The Abrams/T-80 are about the most characterized tanks because they're substantially different than each other at the moment, in that they're supposed to be comparable but the Abrams gets stomped and the T-80 does not. This has all to do with hit-boxes, and I'm aware no arbitrary HP function favors one or the other, it's just how easy it is to hit a zone which results in a OHK. Also, I believe the Leopard 2 should make use of the LAHAT missile, likewise, the Challenger II should probably be about the sturdiest tank in the game. IFVs are also in a pretty disappointing state, as there is currently little difference in them. Oddly enough, units like the Bradley which afford 360 degree protection from 30mm fire are weak to having their turret struck, and side/rear hits are incredibly lethal. This leaves any BMP series IFV at a massive advantage currently due to their low profile, and small turret. Most of the baseline model numbers for the IFVs we're given as the Russians would fair pretty poorly against their NATO equivalents were it not for the lack of detail implemented into their simulation at the moment. At some point, if I were to seriously consider recommending this to a friend, the entire armor system would have to be either a bit less arbitrary or at least get the hit-boxes straightened out so vehicles don't appear massively under-armored in comparison to real life. (Chobham is designed to stop Russian ATGMs; why doesn't it?) I am not interested in study-level simulation (that is, in all or this particular area); though admittedly I am intrigued by such, I just want realistic performance in order to aid combat. Trying to effectively use a tank is far harder than it needs to be because of how aiming is currently handled. The smoke filling the screen is a nice effect, but how long it lasts and the lack of transparency makes it hard if not impossible to gauge the landing of closer shots. Again, gauging the landing of a shot is hard enough as it is, but other mechanics still make it harder. The dust plume is particularly hard to see due to the black coloration coupled with the transparency and the lack of a solid jet (something which is easily done with any projectile hitting the ground if you ever shoot) coming out of the ground hampers shot correction at extreme ranges. Without knowing to a fair degree where these shells will land before they do, it is hard to witness the plume, and correcting is nigh-on impossible. Hit confirmation is also very hard with AP rounds; a bright set of sparks coming off the impact point would be a great way to know if you did actually hit the target. Target acquisition is also a problem, considering engagements in DCS can reach out to huge ranges. I have successfully struck still targets, in a shooting range environment, at 3.9 kilometers, but the accuracy required for tank-on-tank engagement at this point in the game is insane due to hit-boxes. In order to aid target acquisition, I believe massive amounts of magnification being available for any tank would be ideal, 10x, 15x, and 20x might not be enough in some cases regarding tanks, but it would certainly aid IFVs. As a side note, I suggest the addition the Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle as the only practical difference between it and the IFV is ammo capacity, no real model adjustments would be necessary, but the addition of ERA would make it suitably more different. Mostly as practically, an IFV not carrying troops can carry just as much ammo, if for whatever odd reason we can't have vehicle and troop interaction.

Deflection and decrease in penetrative power is not simulated in the game AFAIK. If an AP round strikes the 'frontal armor' section of a tank, which this hit-box varies from tank to tank, it will strike it with minimum damage done to the unit's health power. Side armor, which consists of the track and certain parts of the fore of the turret on the Abrams can be hit from the front* resulting in pretty quick kills. Usually in my playing I think this is the way I kill more tanks, I rarely pound it out with their front armor, I'm actually 'off' my center mass target killing them on accident more than on purpose. (You try aiming for a track at 2+ km) Truth be told, because of the smoke that fills the screen after every shot (I expect muzzle-blast, not smoke!), I cannot see where my tracers fly with the mod either. Kentucky windage'ing it is the only way to hit a thing at the moment, and that's quite the pain, because we can't see how to adjust, both because of the huge amounts of smoke which can't be seen through and how ludicrously small (black and with no solid section at all) kicked up dirt plumes are from an AP round hitting the ground. Even with the tracer mod, the best way to figure out where your shot was is the small black puff of dirt. It's hard to see, and you flat-out won't see it unless you already have a pretty damn good idea where your round is gonna land, but it is there. Wish it was bigger and more visible, though. :\ Side-note: crap, I stopped even using that damn targeting system for anything more than finding my range to target, THAT'S how bad it is.

I came here for the tanks, stayed for the- well, no, I haven't been staying around here poking at stuff.

Hey, how do other tanks fair against the T-80U? We've still got items like the Leopard 2, the Leclerc, and the Challenger (is it 1 or 2 in this? I can't tell), and I think you can strike the Leopard 2's side armor from the front without hitting the tracks, much like the Abrams.

Reading through this thread, I think it's the lack of deflection on the far ends of the Abram's turret. That, coupled with the fact we do have an arbitrary HP system to handle how damage works. Again, mission/mobility/gun kills should probably something that is added into various ground units, along with the capability to repair them. Leopard 2's have even weirder hit boxes, though. @.@ Has anyone messed with other tanks yet?

Someone else should look into the Chally/Leopard 2 hit box profiles, because they're confusing the hell out of me. @.@ One minute I'll get a OHK out of nowhere, the next I'm plinking away at a 2A6's turret wondering what the hell.

This one.

Upper end of the armor, here. Check the track file. :D Or try it for yourself. Besides, wouldn't that be a gun kill, anyway? It wouldn't be pretty, but I'm fairly certain the tank will 'walk' away from it.

If W:EE had individual unit control. *dreamy sigh* Seriously, though, whilst these hit zones are based slightly in realism, the results are far from realistic. Shooting an Abram's on the side of the turret is not going to get you very far, and if you take the track out, well, you've still got an angry damn Abrams staring you in the face. But the main problem has more to do with the hit-boxes. The far ends of the turret are very easy to strike, whereas the tracks present a mildly difficult target. Still, getting catastrophic kills from the front is uuugh, painful. I need to try a similar bit with the T-72, T-55, Leopard 1/2 and Chally, see how it comes out.

And what about the varying hit-boxes and the capability to achieve one hit kills against the turret glacis from the front of the tank?

I think I know why the T-80U beats the M1A2 quite easily. Aside from the handy-dandy ATGM, the T-80U has a harder to strike OHK zone from the front, whereas the extremes of the front of the Abram's glacis is vulnerable to being OHK. Every shot seems to decrease some arbitrary HP value, but front hits are basically like being peppered by a submachine gun, it slightly decreases HP, but it doesn't really do a damn thing. Meanwhile, if you strike the tracks (or the far ends of the Abram's turret) you end up with a quick kill. I think, it would likely be better for the longevity of tank battles if side armor was either increased, or the entire frontal section no longer has any one hit kill areas, a long with a differential front and rear side armor sections, with the frontal side armor being stronger than the rear, obviously. Likewise, decreased effects on HP over time/length of flight with AP rounds would also make it better. I hope this track file helps elaborate what I mean better than I can. abram-txxtest.trk

Aaaah, that alone will be a life saver, though! Thanks!

Is it possible to use a similar method to change the particle effect (color, alpha, transparency, etc) on AP impacts? I'm (still) having difficulty gauging where my shots land. If I'm not looking exactly where they end up, the shot's lost and nearly useless for correction.

If I may, is there anything being done about the difficulty of aiming? HE shells, autocannons and the like are easy to gauge, plus the reticule actually is fairly accurate, but AP shells are extraordinarily difficult to accurately get down range.

There is something highly aggravating when you watch a T-80 start shooting off its in-bore ATGM through a tree-line you can't see crap through. I don't really mind so much the ATGM range, but the nearly instant kill is just, 'Really?' When coupled with the fact the AI get to see through all the foliage. Being able to see the orientation of enemy vehicles by simply looking at the map would also aid these sorts of situations; and make it easier to gauge where your flanking should take you.

That does solve the issue of finding target range, but that doesn't solve the issue of actually learning where to shoot based off of range. The kick, sound, and joy of traversing around in a big, armored 120mm gun platform is pretty much not quite there at this point save for the look of it, but I'm not a tanker, I just shoot. That being said, I shouldn't have to take the aiming out of shooting just to check the range of an extremely long distance target, which was something I hadn't even thought of until now. The dust plumes and magnification remain to be an issue, as well as hit confirmation. After this post I'll try not to mention the latter as it is again understandable, but dust plumes are an important part of figuring out where your shots go. When shooting at long range targets, most individuals prefer to shoot into a bank with loose dirt that will plume out substantially so that they can easily gauge where their shots have landed from where they were aiming themselves. Obviously, seeing where your shot went from where you intended it to go is an important part of aiming anything. Likewise, tracers would solve the issue, coupled with enhanced magnification options.

I've been very intrigued about this since I first heard of it [CA], and now getting to try it out I find myself quite enjoying it; however, there's two issues which currently nag me, and I suppose they have more to do with the beta state of the game than anything else. First and foremost, aiming cannons seems to be much harder than it needs to be, and this revolves around two things. Targeting at extreme ranges can be very hard, especially while dealing with indirect firing, and correcting for a shot after it's been fired is incredibly difficult due to visibility. To compensate for this, the capability to enhance magnification quite a bit more than currently able to, and secondly, the ability to freely adjust your view so that a shot's landing may be observed without adjusting the gun. Aside from that, AP rounds are unnecessarily difficult to aim partly due to the lack of being able to easily see whether or not a shot was a solid impact. Whilst seeing an impact on target I'm sure has more to do with the beta state of the game, the impact plume on the ground is hard to see and identify at extreme ranges over 2 kilometers as of right now; hell, even under one. Using tracers, or making a larger impact plume that is more visible (potentially a color other than black; tannish-brown?) will make ground combat both forgiving and intriguing. As well, the total density of the smoke immediate after a shot does not do much to aid re-acquisition; and I have trouble imagining where these grey-outs come from, as I would be more expecting the muzzle blast to be covering everything south of the barrel, but I alas, I am not a tanker and simply a gamer which enjoys tanks, so I am unsure of such a thing. And this issue, whilst I feel has more to do with my knowledge of what on earth is going on, has minimized my experience (which I'll admit has primarily consisting of learning how to shoot all over again); how does one rearm a ground unit? I also can't for the life of me figure out how to change ammo types on an autocannon like the M2A2's Bushmaster.