Armor seeing Laser Targets

[Dev1200]

A simple suggestion, this would be a lot of help to the infantry (especially for the blufor team on insurgency!) when they are being assisted by an armor squad.


Also, it would help on insurgency because of the harsher civilian-killing penalties. Giving accurate locations so tanks don't think friendlies/civies are enemies.

Also checked the *** Thread. Found nothing.. ._.

[Spartan0189]

I don't actually see a use for this, Laser Targeting is for the Laser Guided bombs, hence the name.

Besides, relaying information squad to squad is easy, if you know how to.

tbh, maybe we can get Laser guided shells while we are at this

[Rudd]

I happen to know that this is a resuggestion since I suggested it

if tanks do not have laser designation apparatus IRL they should not get this.

[TF6049]

Group markers. Like "Attack Team" - plantable by anyone, shows the team a possible target

[SkaterCrush]

Yeah seeing lasers is pretty unrealistic, like Spartan said its for bombs and missiles nothing else...

[Alex6714]

I am not sure. Tanks will have some kind of IR/night vision I am sure.

LiveLeak.com - al-Qaida Position Destroyed By Attack Helicopters-Mosul


Look closely at the beginning. You can see what seems to be the helicopters lase. Later on you can see both the ground and air lases.

Nit sure if thats just and IR beam or the lase, but the beam is different from the ground unit to the air unit.

However, you would´t really see it if it was pointing at you I guess, because it travels over 200m/s...

[McBumLuv]

For what, the lase? 200 m/s isn't very fast...

[Alex6714]

ObjectTemplate.velocity 250 Is what I see for it.

[McBumLuv]

Oh, I thought you meant IRL,

It's hard to see any enemy's spotting you with lases even if you had the chance. I've tried to do so in a PRT game to see if L4gi was lazing our tanks, and I couldn't. Unfortunately, his tacdtic worked and we lost a few tanks, but it just proves that you'd be very lucky if you can see the laze coming.

[Redamare]

That would be an interesting test to see how game play is effected good idea though

[Alex6714]

Oh, I thought you meant IRL,

It's hard to see any enemy's spotting you with lases even if you had the chance. I've tried to do so in a PRT game to see if L4gi was lazing our tanks, and I couldn't. Unfortunately, his tacdtic worked and we lost a few tanks, but it just proves that you'd be very lucky if you can see the laze coming.

In real life more like 299 792 458 m/s.

Hmmm.

250 vs 299 792 458.

People see why I don´t like the soflam now?

[Psyko]

I dont think having tank lases would benifit game play for two reasons

1/ At this time, both teams share the same lase projectile, and that can confuse things, specially when on maps like kashan desert, the tanks are more readily available than gunships and A-10s. (dont fight me on that one, what i mean is, there are nearly always tanks watching areas that need specific lases and guidance)

2/ It would become the main weapon of choice. with 4 or more tanks on each side, armour camping would take control of the field, when in fact, maps like kashan have a compound deliberatly made so armour cant go inside and you require infantry to give each individual bunker a sweep. the main weapon of choice will always be the rifle. and tanks support the rifles, and in turn aircraft support both with priority to the tanks. [lol hope that makes sense]

Imagine holding up your soflam and seeing six or seven laggy green boxes flying around on screen, how are you supposed to know which one to fire at in the first place? in fact you would have to squint your eyes to figure out if its friendly or not, making the whole thing redundant and quite useless.

Instead, like was said above... having one of those red CAS markers with four arrows pointing to the center, specifically adapted for armour, would do very nicely. No spam, maybe code it so it goes away after 60 seconds, and have it so tanks and infantry can see it only. No offence air guys, but i like doing quad leader and tanking, and i think its time that armour got a little beef to it's recon and intel abilities.

i think it might be a nice step in the right direction to start limiting what vehicles see on their maps. the armour shouldnt see the attack markers for aircraft, and in turn the aircraft shouldnt see armour's targets...Unless its designated by infantry. Mainly cus i dont like wrestling an A-10 for targets when im commanding a tank...you know

[Squeezee]

Another potential issue with armor seeing lases:

Sgt. Bob lases enemy AAV. A tank goes to destroy AAV. A-10 drops LGB on AAV, destroying the tank and the AAV.

It seems stupid since you don't need to get close to engage armor (especialy tank vs AAV), but I have seen a lot of stupid stuff in PR before. It honestly wouldn't suprise me.

[gclark03]

Tanks shouldn't even appear on maps with CAS. IRL, if either side had reasonable commanders, armor wouldn't be deployed until air superiority is achieved.

The real problem, however, is that this could really wreak havoc with the LGB system: bombers accidentally locking onto random tanks instead of the infantry-lased target. Rather than risk that, tanks should be removed from CAS maps.

As far as armored combat is concerned, giving vehicles laser signatures and allowing armor to lock on to them is the only way to simulate modern targeting systems.

This is already in Combined Arms. I resuggested it, and CAS_117 made it happen. It's an old idea that predates my account, but the concept's incompatible with PR's unrealistic, character-building SOFLAM.

[Psyko]

Tanks shouldn't even appear on maps with CAS. IRL, if either side had reasonable commanders, armor wouldn't be deployed until air superiority is achieved.

The real problem, however, is that this could really wreak havoc with the LGB system: bombers accidentally locking onto random tanks instead of the infantry-lased target. Rather than risk that, tanks should be removed from CAS maps.

As far as armored combat is concerned, giving vehicles laser signatures and allowing armor to lock on to them is the only way to simulate modern targeting systems.

This is already in Combined Arms. I resuggested it, and CAS_117 made it happen. It's an old idea that predates my account, but the concept's incompatible with PR's unrealistic, character-building SOFLAM.

this is possible. but right now its balanced because its down to the gunner's skill level to kill a target. where if the gunner had an instant lock on to whatever came on screen, the truth is OpFor tanks wouldnt stand a chance. however, it would defenitly be interesting to see how tank battles go with the iranian high tech tank and the chinese one versus the challanger and the abrams. forgive me its late and i cant remember the names.

[Alex6714]

It doesn´t remove skill at all. It can be easier to hit but that doesn´t mean there is no skill. Tactics are much more important also.

[Dev1200]

I happen to know that this is a resuggestion since I suggested it

if tanks do not have laser designation apparatus IRL they should not get this.

It wasn't in the *** thread, searched with about 5 terms.

I was just suggesting this, since it's difficult for infantry squads to communicate with armor or other asset squads in a game. Since VOIP cannot be cross-channeled to other squads.. this is similar to Deviation

Even tho the "deviation" affect doesn't quite happen like that in real life, PR uses it to interprit something realistic.

Even tho the "tanks see lasers" affect doesn't quite happen like that in real life, PR could use it to interprit something realistic (infantry spotting enemies for tanks)

Or in other words:

gclark03 said: As far as armored combat is concerned, giving vehicles laser signatures and allowing armor to lock on to them is the only way to simulate modern targeting systems.

Although "locking" onto the target like a Laser Guided Missile locks onto a target wasn't quite what I was thinking. The tank would just be able to see the target, not actually lock onto it. Im not stealing CAS's fantastic ideas for his work =]