Apocal

It is possible to nudge the wall over while not actually going through to the other side. edit: IRL I mean.

I'm not seeing that outcome on my end. Just to be certain, I went back, made sure all the skills were leveled out at Regular and re-ran the test a bunch of times: Apparently I was wrong about their being only four shots on the Abrams APS -- it is more like four in single volley and a few seconds suffices to reload another 2-3 shots. At 0:53 in the video, you see the perfect setup: four simultaneous shots. All are intercepted. Are you running a later version than 1.01? edit: I'm not saying you're lying or anything, I'm just showing that this is not happening from my end. I'm reproducing this behavior in normal gameplay as well, although it is a messier process since line of sight is thorny and teams don't always like to fire in volleys. But the APS is a bit godlike.

You can crush some walls with tanks and maybe Strykers/BTRs. At least you could in CMSF and CMBN.

Sometimes the huge, nuclear-bomb level secondary explosions will take out vics directly adjacent even without the round's assistance.

Because the APS only has four shots. Practically speaking, there isn't a close-range deadzone: initiating an RPG ambush from 23-30m meters resulted in four RPGs knocked down.

Uh, these two dudes:

I fight it via real-time multiplayer.

Really, I just hunker down, let it expend its ordnance then dash out and do whatever I was going to do, along with maybe throwing down smokescreens. I haven't lost anything in a screen yet, but I haven't gone through very many iterations either.

That would require a phone-home functionality in the game itself and praying that someone in the (small) community doesn't do something to game the system with faux-QBs.

If you consider the cost as part of the vehicle budget you're basically getting those Javelins for free because a Regular, Normal, 0 Leadership Bradley IFV/CFV (APS) w/ a CLU and three Javs cost 378 points while the equivalent BMP-3M costs 411 and gives nothing comparable in terms of ATGMs. I haven't noticed it crippling the American side of QBs overly much; their vehicles are better bang for the buck, especially APS-equipped, up-vetted M1A2s. Actual Javelin teams are cheaper than the highest-tier Russian ATGMs, which is probably a mistake but... Anyway, I've found winning the armor war to be the most crucial factor.

You could do this in the Operation Flashpoint/ArmA series. It was so baller with the ACE mod as well, I felt like a real gunship badass the day I first did a pop-up Hellfire attack under the noses of SPAAGs and MANPADs then got away clean.

Just to quote someone else who cued me onto it:

Probably because the latest Russian military thinking is that they'd get rolled, hard, by an all-out NATO assault at which point the nukes come out.

lol wat? The vehicles still raise dust, I don't know if it counts for spotting purposes or indeed, if the AI even reacts to the ? contact marks moving around.

Presumably because every US rifle squad can consistently knock out advancing Red armor, regardless of the presence of APS, laser warning system, ERA, etc.

Same reason laser-based precision artillery can't, I presume.

I played Tornado and yes, it was the hands down best mission planner I've ever seen in a game. I loved planning runway strikes with JP223s, setting up the initial point just right for a good attack run and then streaking overhead at nearly Mach 1, cratering the hell out of the field. That consumed an embarrassing amount of my youth and vigor.

Alright, I'll give it a shot and see how it goes. Only in scale. From what I seen playing online so far, players break off the AT portions of their squads and mass them to attempt to overcome APS. That is what originally twigged me onto the fact that APS -- as currently simulated -- can't reliably be overwhelmed by volley, only exhausted by expenditure. Obviously there is an element of "best case" here, but the more realistic runs just mean nothing hurts the APS protected tank ever, since teams don't have an built-in "fire in volleys" behavior.

Hmm, I have the game open right now to run tests and I'm not seeing it. What I am seeing is the APS refusing to engage very near misses that do gradual damage to tracks and various soft systems depending where they impact around the tank. The final clip in my video shows exactly that, with a few RPGs splashing right around the tank and doing blast damage without a hit notification. The system seems to be nearly completely reliable at defeating multiple, closely spaced rockets with minimal difficulty, even at the upper end of volley sizes (4+). Is it possible the behavior you describe has been broken in some subsequent iteration since you first observed it?

No, you cannot. Basically the only things you can call upon for indirect fire are on the support menu.

I haven't noticed a significant difference when testing, but I'd need to go back and re-run the test to get you numbers. It appears that the minimum volley size is three to reap benefits against the T-90's APS with the Abrams' (apex predator of the CMBS battlefield) APS knocking down four out of six fired in a single volley during one test.

Excal does have an IMU that performs only bit worse than GPS guidance. It only kicks in once the GPS signal gets jammed, so the error is minimized.

So have I: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/107696-dumb-question-no-42-or-is-that-43/#entry1413832 But I keep the faith. Some day I will be able to pop online with a spare two hours and get through three games against complete strangers in that time...

1. Network disconnect leads to the game perma-freezing. I don't think I've yet seen it click back on and there is no way (AFAIK) to force it to recognize that the network is fine. I know most people play WEGO multiplayer, but it makes real-time a bummer since a single modem hiccup can result in an abrupt end to an otherwise fine match. 2. No way to chat to someone picking their forces. Since some people spend nearly as long purchasing as they do arranging, I think this is a pretty big oversight. 3. It would be helpful to have some form of lobby system where guest player can see what parameters the host is punching in for the scenario. If nothing else, it would make it easier to haggle.

KARI was French-designed and built.