Boogie Van Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) 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. Edited July 22, 2012 by Boogie Van
Recommended Posts