Warfare CORE: ACR Units poll

[MarkusNemesis]

The units in question are:

Mi171Sh_CZ_EP1
Mi171Sh_rockets_CZ_EP1 (Rocket sled)
T72_ACR (Modernised T72 w/ 125mm cannon)
Mi24_D_CZ_ACR (Modernised Mi-24V w/ 8x Atakas and 80x rockets)

So, the question is, should BLUFOR get these units?

[Freeborne]

I'm surprised by all the yes votes.

We can just make it UN vs RUSSIA, and reskin all the OPFOR units to a UN camo scheme if that's what people are after. Never realized everyone wanted mirrored units in Warfare though.

BDRM vs BDRM
T72 vs T72
Mi17_Rockets vs Mi17_Rockets
Mi24D vs Mi24D

I'm sure we can find another UN army that has T90 or maybe the Tunguska, and just reskin them and put them on BLUFOR

As much as I want to play with these units regularly (and I pretty much just play Warfare), it would look really odd adding these units to BLUFOR.

I'm not 100% against having them added but I still voted no. It makes more sense to add the KA-60 and other NATO units first, yet no-one seems to be interested in that

[Goshawk]

KA-60 can't be added unfortunately as it's an independent unit and shows up as hostile on radar.

Just because these units are in Warfare doesn't mean people are going to use them. It's about choice.
Besides, no one **** when BluFor steals resistance tanks and rolls through half the map in a BMP or T-series tank?
Also, there's a new Ambo for BluFor which is nice.

There's quite a lot of new units added in this DLC which is nice, including a BMP-1 for Takistan which might make a nice HF0 or 1 unit.

I'm currently testing them all out in the editor to see how they go.

[UnderTow]

the question could be asked why would you buy a DLC then not be allowed to use the units.

i really dont care either way, if blu get them all good, if they dont no loss.

i think blu need better APCs and vehicles that dont just explode on an impact with a rock or tree, more than a tank or a chopper.

adding these units isnt going to change the dynamics of the game that much, imo.


If they are added to the game by benny id rather see them tested, rather than just nerf altogether.

if these units make the game completely outta wack then ye remove them.
if the dont, then why not use them, its a DLC embrace it.

test 1st debate later!

[MarkusNemesis]

the question could be asked why would you buy a DLC then not be allowed to use the units.

i really dont care either way, if blu get them all good, if they dont no loss.

i think blu need better APCs and vehicles that dont just explode on an impact with a rock or tree, more than a tank or a chopper.

adding these units isnt going to change the dynamics of the game that much, imo.


If they are added to the game by benny id rather see them tested, rather than just nerf altogether.

if these units make the game completely outta wack then ye remove them.
if the dont, then why not use them, its a DLC embrace it.

test 1st debate later!

Benny wont be adding these to 2.071, and I highly recommend not moving from this version at all, as, Benny is bent on making a 1v1v1 version, and any other normal versions in future are uncertain.

CORE has ACR now integrated (Minus the OP's vehicles) and I'm now moving to start testing it.

[UnderTow]

hmm ok.., but what was the point of the poll?

were u looking for ppl to confirm your own status?

8 yes votes
3 no votes

winner is no?

[Sky Monster]

Again people overlook the small details... Yes it would be nice for units galore to be added BUT;

- ACR Hind has 8 Atakas. That's 8 Dead T90s, yes 8 hellfires also means 8 dead T90s, but they are nowhere near as accurate or fast as atakas.

- The ACR T72's cannon is the most powerful in the game so far. It also has slightly more armour than the OPFOR T72s. Enjoy your insta popped T90s OPFOR players...

Those two vehicles are the only ones I have issues with, Rocket sleds and such I don't see being a problem.

BLUFOR certainly need the Pandur, Dingos and Landrover ambo though. So I'm all for those.

As for the small arms We just have to deal with the fact BIS like adding BLUFOR DLC for all those PvE servers. They lap it right up.

Its difficult for polls, because people have no idea what kind of bullsh*t they are voting for.

[Goshawk]

Just tested in editor:

1: The ACR T72 does not insta kill T90s.

2: The Ataka will disable a T90 but not outright kill it, also the radar range on the V is pretty low.

[MarkusNemesis]

Just tested in editor:

1: The ACR T72 does not insta kill T90s.

2: The Ataka will disable a T90 but not outright kill it, also the radar range on the V is pretty low.

It's not a No, nor is it a yes, this poll is running till tomorrow.

The ACR Mi-24 fills no niche as three pre-existing units already do, thus making me wonder what reason I'd have to add it, other than for the sake of it.

The ACR T72 can kill the T90 in one shot (I've tested it, it disabled then secondaried moments later). The ACR T72 doesn't fill any niche as the M1A1 fills and surpasses the niche of the ACR T72.

The Mi-17 does however fill a niche in BLUFOR's air, and that is mass dumbfire rockets, but, mass rockets are the speciality of OPFOR, so this brings unit homogenisation into play, which, most aren't for.

But, at the end of the day, if the majority support their addition, then they'll be added, otherwise, no problems.

[Freeborne]

Has no-one heard of Unit Balancing before?

8 Atakas? Oh no, if only there was a way to replace those with more appropriate missile load-outs....

If only there was a way to make the wildcat a rocket sled...

C'mon. Think before you make a final ruling on these things.

[MarkusNemesis]

Has no-one heard of Unit Balancing before?

8 Atakas? Oh no, if only there was a way to replace those with more appropriate missile load-outs....

If only there was a way to make the wildcat a rocket sled...

C'mon. Think before you make a final ruling on these things.

The most I'd do to the Wildcat is make it more like the UH-1y, rather than a rocket sled.

What do you propose I change the 8 atakas to? If you say Shturms, you've obviously failed to read my posts again.

[Baskerville]

I don't have a problem with the smaller stuff but I don't want Blufor having T72's and Hinds that they can buy from their factories even if they are different sides in real life.

[PlacidBox]

I don't have a problem with the smaller stuff but I don't want Blufor having T72's and Hinds that they can buy from their factories even if they are different sides in real life.

For the same reason we don't stick in the CDF t72 and hind. It's nice to have differences in the sides.

[Goshawk]

Well if that's the case then we better not be putting the L39 and L159 in as Takistan already has that unit and we can't have that confusion oh noes!!

Don't forget the Huey as well, both teams have that and they look similar!


I still don't see what the actual problem with putting these units in is. They are different to what OpFor has in terms of capability and provide VARIETY to users. Just because they're in there doesn't mean every man and his dog is going to start using T-72's on BluFor or flying around in Hinds. You put them in there for the same reason that we have multiple AH-64 variants or multiple Hummvee variants or multiple SU-25 variants.


Also, please continue to be transparent and explain to everyone why you're not going to put the RBS-70 static weapon in despite it now possibly being BluFor's best hope at shooting down OpFor aircraft from the ground.

[Sky Monster]

If that gets added in, don't expect me to play OPFOR anymore.

For gods sake I wish BIS would just have a little f-cking consistency as for what has MWS, flares, radar range etc. It's been giving us all quite a headache for a while now. They need a third party to revise it all and release an official patch if they can't be bothered... seriously... I'm going to assume It's all of an hours work to someone experienced, what's so hard about that?

Someone link Dwarden/whothef-ckever to these goddamn threads. I don't think BiS pay any attention whatsoever to the PvP scene, that really needs to change for ArmA 3. Who's kept ArmA alive before all this DayZ ****? Domi and Warfare servers... They seem to have forgotten that...

Devheaven tickets just get a "oh its fixed now" when it's not, or been made worse or simple permanently reassigned to the next version...