Call To Arms Tank
The Center for Army Lessons Learned is the Army's daily focal point for adaptive learning based on lessons and best practices from the total force and provides timely and relevant knowledge to the warfighter and our unified action partners utilizing integrated systems and interactive technology in order to simplify winning in a complex world.
There's also the issue of range in CtA.At longer ranges, say 3,000m, the M1 tank would have a significant advantage versus a T-80. It might be difficult for the T-80 to frontally penetrate an M1A2 with APFSDS at longer ranges. But at close ranges, like 1,000-2,000m, the T-80's APFSDS would likely penetrate or severely damage the M1 tank.
In CtA a 1,000m or 2,000m shot would be incredibly long-ranged, so the pricey advantage of the M1 doesn't come into play.The other advantage of the M1 would be superior optics and fire control. But again, these benefits are only really useful at long range, and at closer ranges like in CtA the T-80 would have no problem seeing an M1 tank or hitting it.In the end, the M1 tank might just end up being much more expensive for fairly little benefit, mostly because tank fights in CtA are like knife fights. Originally posted by:There is also the issue of cost.The M1 tanks cost 1300/1600 MP for a M1A2 or M1A2 TUSK.The T-80 tanks cost 1100/1400 MP for a T-80BV or T-80U.On the other hand, a M1 tank costs $9 million or more, while a T-80 only costs a third to a half of that price.If we do significantly buff an M1 tank, then would we buff T-80s by making them substantially less expensive to field than an M1? That's already pretty much the case. Which is ironic, considering the T-80U is miles better than either M1A2 model thanks to the ATGM and a comparable armor value. Playing in armored combat mode, it's not even a contest most of the time, the T-80U's only major US threat is, out of all things, a TOW2 Humvee.Either tanks needs some sort of APS/ERA system to actually be functional in game, or ATGM's need to have their penetration values potentially tweaked. The TOW-2 alone has a penetration value of a whopping 1500.
Call To Arms Tank Reward
Originally posted by:also how much RHAE would you say sloped armor puts on a modern tank, i have wondered about this before.It depends on so many factors that it's not even funny.For example, the type of penetrator matters to figure out if sloped armour works as intended or not. Some sloped armour, in addition to thickening the armour, at a certain angle of hit might bounce shallow shots.
If those rounds happen to be older. Other sloped armour might get dug into (normalisation) with a modern APFSDS dart, so actually sloped armour might be LESS effective.It also depends on the armour and the materials its made from. RHAe of course is just a approximation, but doesn't take into account that RHA, composite, and NERA will all behave differently when shot with different things.So long answer, you can't say. Short answer, some research suggests that sloping a plate to 60 degrees adds 17% RHAe. But see that long answer. Originally posted by:It is highly possible that armor values of those tanks are indication of developers perceptible misconception about nowaday armor.For example T-80U its front hull plate has effective 780mm protection against KE but because of the out-dated 'AS1 slope effect' it has maybe around 1320mm which is obviously ridiculous.Actually, I'm pretty certain real life statistics have very marginal, if any correlation to in-game stats, if MoW is anything to go. The stats of units are governed heavily by gameplay, not the composition of their real life counterparts.
This is most profound in Assault Squad, where many platforms and munitions do not have the sort of symmetrical effect on armor that they would IRL(Otherwise mid-tier US tanks would actually do pretty well against tigers with their 76mm's for instance. Heck, even the 90mm on the slugger has laughable penetration compared to weaker guns on tanks like the KT).Personally, while this does lead to awkward circumstances occasionally, I believe it's largely for the best. At the end of the day, it's much better to have a balanced, fun game than a strictly realistic one. Especially as far as multiplayer is concerned. CtA abstracts a few things(Sometimes to laughable degrees, like technicals going nuclear from a 40mm grenade) for better or worse, but it's better than wasting a lot of time, energy, and resources trying to be perfectly exacting on every piece of military equipment when that's really not the point of the game's overarching 'goal' the moment you hop into an actual match. Originally posted by:Indeed, but developers do not need to know all about rocket science to build realistic and at same time balanced and coherent gameplay of both infantry/vehicle combat.
Call To Arms Tank Rewards
Take a look over Arma franchise once again, there is a huge beauty in simplicity and still it is labeled as 'military simulator' and the interpretation of the infantry/vehicle behaviors in combat is just right, nothing is too strong nor too weak.Hence it would be really healthily to change this franchise from infantry centric non-sense to RTS. Perhaps it could attract a lot more people. Which is in CtA case more than essential. I don't agree with that, personally.
Call To Arms Tank Battle
MoW has always been an RTT that focuses primarily on infantry play, and CtA is no different. That's never going to change, IMO, because the means for getting a vehicle in the first place makes them inherintly valuable and risky investments, rather than common and 'throw away'. They just can't really be the center-piece of the game without there being some special game mode like Armored Combat that circumvents the resource system of the game. Assault Squad shook this dynamic up in a positive way through special point units, but CtA doesn't seem like it's going to ever go in that direction.There will undoubtedly be mods like Robz eventually made for CtA that crank up damage values and weapon ranges for the more 'semi-realistic' feel, but I feel like the core gameplay itself shouldn't wildly change. ArmA works the way it does because it's an FPS/TPS, not an RTT/RTS.
What works in a totally different genre doesn't necessarily translate over well to a game about micromanaging dozens of units at once rapidly.
So basically, qued up for a heroic to tank it, gear is ok, wasn't too concerned, but was kind of excited to see exactly what was going to be in the satchel reward, not having tanked yet in Legion on Heroic. Imagine my surprise and disappointment when after successfully completing the dungeon, with only one death, and not getting the tanking reward.
I thought it must have glitched, so I did a ticket. This is blizzards response: I took a look into this for you, and I pulled up the logs for you character, and I see the loot roll for completing the Vault, and I don't see the satchel as being eligible. This can happen for one of two reasons. If you queued for two different roles, the one you were picked for was not offering the satchel. Or, the most common reason, Someone declined the first queue, or someone left the instance at one point in the run. If this happened, you were put back in the queue, and the reward wasn't being offered anymore.
If neither of those things happened, please put in a bug report into our bug forums, so our QA team can take a closer look at this. I was like what? How does this even make sense? Why is my character punished for something beyond my control? And I think someone did leave the group, kept dying and getting lost. Next reply: When a tank or a healer answer the Call to Arms, you are in need in a particular dungeon and this Satchel of Exotic Mysteries is offered as a reward for answering that call.
When you answer a Call, but a player DCs, drops group, gets kicked or is otherwise gone and the remaining players have to requeue, the Call to Arms 'buff' is lost. The reasoning behind this is that, when the Call is initiated, your dungeon roll is needed, but, if you are already in the dungeon, no offense intended, but your roll isn't as ACTIVELY needed to complete the instance. While I can understand being pretty upset at this news, and feeling like this is unfair is totally justified. Unfortunately, Customer Support is unable to effect changes into the way the game is programmed and that would require our developers to step in to edit the code. Ok, maybe I am not reading this correctly, but as a tank, how am I 'not needed'? Whichever the case, this is something that should be fixed. If a GM can drop items in your bags, how are they not at least able to say, 'we see you didn't get your reward, here is some gold, or a bag, or something.'
Maybe I've got it wrong, but if I do not have it wrong, IMO this is extremely unfair to tanks and healers, and puts them subject to not getting any of the promised rewards simply because someone can't or won't finish the instance, loses their connection, etc. This exact situation has happened to me in the past.
At that time the bonus almost never popped for healers, so I was excited to see it. Queued, finished the dungeon, no satchel. CS told me the same thing. If I queue with the reward promised and finish the dungeon, I should get the reward regardless of whether that one DPS guy missed the queue and we technically requeued before ever starting the instance.
It's like a bait and switch. Maybe they need to offer those rewards more often given the dungeon queue times we are hearing about from DPS. The thing that blows my mind, something not easily done, is that this apparently has been going on for some time, and its not even in the works to be addressed. Sure its not a mythic or raid, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. At my item level, I can most likely do mythics, low lvls, but I'm in a small guild and don't like grouping with strangers if I can help it. Needless to say, if I do take the time to do so, and a reward is to be given, I feel its only fair that I or anyone else gets it. 06:37 PMPosted by Don't worry, you didn't miss anything.
The 'satchel' has a whopping 700-800 gold (omg!) along with maybe a Defiled Augment Rune (Woo, another 300g value!) and a consumable Artifact Power item (+100 Artifact power, NOT affected by Artifact Knowledge) that is BoA (so you can trade it to your alts, gee whiz!). So, it's basically 100% worthless and an insult to the people who take up the roles that no one else wants to fill. Thats a thousand gold total, for me, thats alot and I could use it.
Having had this happen to me before, I always make sure to look at the rewards being offered before I accept and enter a dungeon queue that pops up. I've noticed that when Call to Arms pops for the tanking role, if I queue and don't get in right away - I need to be very cautious about accepting when the queue pops, making sure that the reward satchel is still being shown. If the Call to Arms is shown at the time you queue for the instance, you should obtain the reward for that role NO MATTER WHAT. This does not appear to be the case, currently.
Just a day ago I had a queue pop for the tanking role (which was Call to Arms at the time I queued) with no satchel, so I just declined to go in. Not worth my time. Anywho, whether it's a requeue while you're in the instance, or the need drops because a flood of people queue for the Call of Arms, the satchel should be determined by when you queued and not on anything else. It is the reason you queued, and thus, should be rewarded regardless of the need by the time the queue pops or the instance is underway. Anything less is bait and switch. 06:37 PMPosted by Don't worry, you didn't miss anything.
The 'satchel' has a whopping 700-800 gold (omg!) along with maybe a Defiled Augment Rune (Woo, another 300g value!) and a consumable Artifact Power item (+100 Artifact power, NOT affected by Artifact Knowledge) that is BoA (so you can trade it to your alts, gee whiz!). So, it's basically 100% worthless and an insult to the people who take up the roles that no one else wants to fill. I dont think you know what worthless means. I could totally use all of that gold.
Your post might actually make me want to tank heroics sooner that expected.