(Suggestion) Add Artillery vehicles! :D

[Denis P]

Your squad is exchanging fire with what seems to be an entire platoon when suddenly, an enemy Varsuk comes rolling! You don't have any AT because the AT troops are all hanging around the base to customize their class, you're out of mines, the Mohawk can't airlift vehicles because of a stupid bug and you can't escape. You're surrounded.

 

This is a situation in which you would be out of options in the current version. However, if you had some artillery at the base, this would be piece of cake (and a piece of danger close and a chance of a lot of soldiers ending up as friendly-fire statistics, but still!). Being capable of firing across the ENTIRE ISLAND of Altis, the M5 Sandstorm and M4 Scorcher would be valuable assets for pinned-down forces on the server. Granted that the gunner knows how to use the artillery computer and the poor suckers at the front-line know how to co-ordinate an attack, artillery vehicles would easily be able to turn the tide of any battle without even having to leave the base.

 

Supporters:

Denis P (forever alone on the supporter list)

[David]

I can see you've put a lot of work into this. We'll certainly review and see if it's plausible.

We did used to have artillery in the form if the M4 scorcher. Sadly it was abused, we tried all reasonable ways to stop it but we had to remove it.

[Denis P]

I can see you've put a lot of work into this. We'll certainly review and see if it's plausible.

We did used to have artillery in the form if the M4 scorcher. Sadly it was abused, we tried all reasonable ways to stop it but we had to remove it.

How exactly was it abused?

[JuX]

I find the reasoning behind this suggestion fundamentally flawed. Using heavy artillery simply to take out enemy tanks just doesn't seem practical

and causes major collateral damage with it's inaccuracy over distance without guidance. Besides there are armor capabilities added as default

equipment for the team, well as UAV drones equipped with GBU bombs. Not to mention side mission rewards.

 

In my personal opinion artillery should remain as short range support for anti-infantry purposes (mortar).

[Denis P]

I find the reasoning behind this suggestion fundamentally flawed. Using heavy artillery simply to take out enemy tanks just doesn't seem practical

and causes major collateral damage with it's inaccuracy over distance without guidance. Besides there are armor capabilities added as default

equipment for the team, well as UAV drones equipped with GBU bombs. Not to mention side mission rewards.

 

In my personal opinion artillery should remain as short range support for anti-infantry purposes (mortar).

It does have other uses as well, like flushing out enemies at side missions, leveling houses containing heavy infantry presence (where clearing it out using infantry would be a huge risk). The M4 is also capable of using laser-guided shells and mine clusters, which could be useful for accurate target-shelling or defending an area from an enemy attack. Of course, wether or not artillery would be a suitable option depends on the scenario. In the one I described in the post above, it might just do the trick. Wether or not you'd want to use artillery would be up to the players with boots in the main ao to decide. I'm just saying that it could be useful to have it around if it would be needed. Besides, I didn't only mention tanks, I also mentioned heavy enemy presence.

[BACONMOP]

The artillery was removed because a few people would always take either the artillery or mortars and level the entire ao before anybody even got a chance to get to the ao. I remember that 1 time i was on a different server that did have the M5 sandstorm and I killed every enemy in the ao with 2 barrages.

[JuX]

It does have other uses as well, like flushing out enemies at side missions, leveling houses containing heavy infantry presence (where clearing it out using infantry would be a huge risk). The M4 is also capable of using laser-guided shells and mine clusters, which could be useful for accurate target-shelling or defending an area from an enemy attack. Of course, wether or not artillery would be a suitable option depends on the scenario. In the one I described in the post above, it might just do the trick. Wether or not you'd want to use artillery would be up to the players with boots in the main ao to decide. I'm just saying that it could be useful to have it around if it would be needed. Besides, I didn't only mention tanks, I also mentioned heavy enemy presence.

 

What im trying to say is there is no need for heavy artillery, when there is vast array of equipment to do the same job with minimal collateral damage.

Even M4 mine clusters are pointless ammunition that will cause negative impact on people playing on the ground at AO. Even now artillery is an option,

but only in form of mortars, you can assemble them on the field and they fill the requirement you desire.

 

The heavy artillery units are often abused and people find it frustrating, when they spend countless minutes moving from one AO to an another,

just to find it completely shelled down with few remaining enemy stragglers left.

 

Besides the game is about teamwork, not about man with a button.

[Denis P]

I wasm't aware of it being abused that much, but if it's not wanted, I guess we can live without it.

[zissou]

Yeah if it's used in moderation and sensibly then it would be a great addition but policing it is nigh impossible and history has shown that anything that can be abused will be. Remember that mortars are still available via the hemmt.

Also remember that artillery has a substantial cost in regards to performance.

Mine artillery kills frames and the way arma deals with destroyed buildings is not ideal.

If it could be given as a side mission reward with no reload capability and a limited ammo supply then maybe yes, but I have no idea where one would start with that

[Denis P]

Yeah if it's used in moderation and sensibly then it would be a great addition but policing it is nigh impossible and history has shown that anything that can be abused will be. Remember that mortars are still available via the hemmt. Also remember that artillery has a substantial cost in regards to performance. Mine artillery kills frames and the way arma deals with destroyed buildings is not ideal. If it could be given as a side mission reward with no reload capability and a limited ammo supply then maybe yes, but I have no idea where one would start with that

You could perhaps only add the M4 Scorcher. The M4 Scorcher does take a long time to reload in between every shell fired, unlike the M5 Snadstorm which can send a barrage of 12 missiles between every time you resupply.. If you add the M4 Scorcher as a side mission reward, I doubt it'll be worse than the A-164 Wipeout or the Mi-48 Kajman/AH-64 Blackfoot.

[razgriz33]

Just to add my two cents:

We did have a scorcher in however like cas, when the player takes a supporting role into his own hands it sometimes ends in bad results, like a mother force feeding you that oh so delicious cake until you hate it.

 

We even tried to keep mortars in but that didn't work either.

 

I do however on occasion grant the use of artillery vehicles to players who have displayed patience and the right attitude

 

(Trying to keep this post brief on purpose to move away from TL:DR responses )

[Arkantes]

Do you think it'd be technically possible (with the tools BI gave us) to stop a M4 from firing unless a call for artillery support was made, with an interface similar to what we see in singleplayer? Better yet if it could display the coordinates on the artillery computer/map.

[thetryder]

The whole artillery support concept is in my opinion really good and if csat use it on us we should be able to use it back. As long as it can be controlled so players don't abuse the artillery firing. As arkantes said the artilleries can maybe at some point be scripted so it cannot fire unless called in. I do not know if its possible but it would be great.

[JuX]

The whole artillery support concept is in my opinion really good and if csat use it on us we should be able to use it back. As long as it can be controlled so players don't abuse the artillery firing. As arkantes said the artilleries can maybe at some point be scripted so it cannot fire unless called in. I do not know if its possible but it would be great.

 

Scripted or non-scripted, it doesn't really matter in terms of abuse. Unless someone is willing and able to create a script that restricts

use of artillery near friendly troops. Otherwise trolls will use this to shell entire extraction/landing point of friendlies and the AI gets the blame for it.

[MDCCLXXVI]

I'll be adding Arty back in at some point.

 

It's fairly low on the to-do list, but it will make a comeback.

 

The trick is to get the right balance.

 

It is prone to abuse, and there are players who simply have no class and don't see a problem with shelling the entire AO and ruining the experience for others.

 

...

 

It will make an appearance again, but in a tightly controlled manner to prevent public-server abuse.

 

Still looking at solution pathways for it. Whether to outsource it to AI and make use of support requester, or allow players to use it and restrict the type/quantity/duration of fire missions.

[Denis P]

I'll be adding Arty back in at some point.

 

It's fairly low on the to-do list, but it will make a comeback.

 

The trick is to get the right balance.

 

It is prone to abuse, and there are players who simply have no class and don't see a problem with shelling the entire AO and ruining the experience for others.

 

...

 

It will make an appearance again, but in a tightly controlled manner to prevent public-server abuse.

 

Still looking at solution pathways for it. Whether to outsource it to AI and make use of support requester, or allow players to use it and restrict the type/quantity/duration of fire missions.

As was stated before, anything that can be abused will be. However it seems like you've also removed mortars again which is a big shame because of how useful they were in a situation where there was too much infantry at a side objective to be able to deal with. If you're not going to add the artillery vehicles, you could at least give us the mortars back.

[MDCCLXXVI]

As was stated before, anything that can be abused will be. However it seems like you've also removed mortars again which is a big shame because of how useful they were in a situation where there was too much infantry at a side objective to be able to deal with. If you're not going to add the artillery vehicles, you could at least give us the mortars back.

 

I did not remove mortars, and im not responsible for what is hosted on the server, that is up to Raz and the top brass.

[Denis P]

I did not remove mortars, and im not responsible for what is hosted on the server, that is up to Raz and the top brass.

No, I wasn't refering to you in person. I was refering to you in general. You know, the ahoy team. =)

[Lars]

Is it possible to reduce the Ammo on the M4 to lets say 10 laser guided shells and some smoke and flare shells? Could you make it so that it could only be rearmed like every 20-30 minutes?

[Amentes]

Should be possible as far as I know, but you'd never have those shells used properly, as some random would certainly hop straight on in there and send them off at nothing in particular.

 

And then you'd get a bunch of hassle with people whining about the reload time, etc. etc.

 

Seems like more trouble than it's worth, unfortunately.