I really like your draws and explanations and you are true. Upvoted.

Nice writeup. Upvoted.

Very funny :) upvoted.

Needs to be addressed. I suspect the unprotected cargo compartement is a modelling shortcut to get the truck ready in time, but it's not really the best of choices.

Upvoted.

Strange decisions indeed. Upvoted.

well i was going to upvote, but the images now made me comment how funny they are

the only person in this truck who is actually protected from mines and ambushes is the driver.

Not even really that. I've had success with mines to an extent but small arms have no problem shooting through the paper thin metal or glass.

I don't like the way Arma 3 is handling balance... In A2 something would make up for others but in A3... They are just making sure no one cries... Please, don't! Give factions both good stuff bad stuff... In the end, War does not favor the most well equipped but the smartest and swiftest.

Copy&paste from an older ticket, so some of the information is outdated:

Let's compare all the vehicles, shall we?

Quadbike - Yeah, the same as it's always been.
MRAPs - Some are faster, some are smaller, some have commanders, some don't. I don't see the point of more differences.
APCs (wheeled) - The AAF one has missiles and a 30 mm cannon, the NATO one has a 40 mm and a 6.5 coax and the CSAT one has 2 less wheels (not like it makes a huge difference, though it's easier to disable it with small arms) and a 40 mm cannon with less ammo and without the APFSDS-T rounds.
IFVs (tracked) - The NATO one has very thin armour, while the CSAT one has better armour AND ATGMs. All other weapons are the same.
MBTs - They both have a 120 mm cannon, but the NATO one can carry 6 people in the back, while the CSAT one is smaller and more agile (or is it?).
Attack helicopters - The CSAT one is a flying tank, it has 8 ATGMs, 38 rockets and a 30 mm autocannon. In addition to that, it can carry 8 people in the back. The NATO one is very fragile, has only a 20 mm (pretty much useless the way it is now), 24 DAGRs (which are, AFAIK, supposed to be as powerful as the DARs on the AH-9s, but they can still take out APCs in one hit) and 4 ASRAAMs. It is faster and more agile, though.
Light transport/attack helis - Only NATO has them.
Medium transport helis - The PO-30 and the UH-80 belong in this category. The UH-80 is bigger and has just two miniguns, while the PO-30 has either no armament or 12 DAGRs and a 6.5 minigun.
Heavy transport helicopters - Only AAF has them (at the moment?).
Jets - Only AAF has them, at the moment.
Armed boats - The NATO and AAF have a 40 mm GMG and a 6.5 minigun, while the CSAT one has a 40 mm and a .50 cal HMG.
Uunarmed boats - The same for every faction, I don't see a point in them being different.
AA and arty vehicles - Okay, they're completely the same, just mounted on a different chassis. NATO does have an MLRS, though.

Now, the weapons:
Main service rifles - NATO and CSAT are pretty much the same, though since CSAT rifle uses a bulpup design, it has a higher muzzle velocity. AAF and FIA use a 5.56 NATO rifles, which are weaker than the NATO and CSAT ones.
DMRs - NATO uses a variant of the main service rifle, which has a uses 6.5, while CSAT uses a 7.62 rifle. AAF also uses a 7.62, but with bigger magazines, than the CSAT one.
Carbines - Both use variants of the main rifle.
LMGs - NATO uses a variant of the main rifle, while CSAT uses a 7.62 rifle, with bigger magazines, but a slightly slower rate of fire than the NATO one. AAF uses a 6.5 caliber LMG with bigger mags than the NATO one and around the same RoF.
Sniper rifles - NATO uses a .408 rifle with 7 round mags, while CSAT and AAF use a .50 cal Russian rifle with 5 round mags. All of them are, obviously, bolt-action.
Launchers - NATO uses a guided launcher that can lock-on onto ground vehicles, while CSAT and AAF use unguided RPGs.
Pistols - NATO and CSAT pistols are completely the same, but how different were they in Arma 2? AAF uses a 1911 variant.
Heavy pistols - NATO uses an 11 round .45 ACP semi-auto pistol, while CSAT has a .45 ACP 6 round revolver.
Heavy AA and AT launcher - OK, you got me.

I always see how balancing things like this would be an issue in Arma, it makes realistic things obsolete. They look to be what it is supposedly used for, but how it actually implemented in the game isn't the way it should be.

Honestly, uparmoring the Tempest trucks to the repair truck standards wouldn't throw off the balance at all, and therefore, should be implemented. If you're worried about these trucks being overpowered compared to the AAF and NATO, don't use them in your missions. You still have the CSAT Zamak that you can use instead.

You can kill everyone in a Tempest with an assault rifle -_- wtf

AD2001, still thinking there is no balance?

both factions:
rifleman: a rifle, a red dot sight and a pistol of small cal with 2 mags
pilots/crew/recon forces/mechanics: a carbine, pistol, chem lights (same amount different color)
marksman: same story, same amount of items given.

These are just examples, the problem with balance-realism doesn't come from wich vehicle is the best one, but about small details.

PD: A-164 and the CSAT plane have almost the same armament, too.

So what if they have the same amounts of everything? Maybe both NATO and CSAT found out that it's the ideal amount of things to carry.

The "imbalance" comes from the differences in their weapons. For example, the Katiba series has a higher bullet velocity and less recoil than the MX series. And the Zafir is undeniably the best man portable MG in the game.

Screw balancing.

This needs to be a true MRAP, otherwise it is pointless to implement. If it has an open cargo space, it is just like the Zamak. It -is- functionally completely identical to the Zamak right now, in fact.

Remove the current cargo variants, and use the properly armored variant with a functional cargo space instead.

but the point its that its not enough, and its not just balance between teams but also between units.

An example would be that all riflemans should have optics (like nowdays)

Well, because of this (http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=17821) Tempest is EXACTLY like Zamak, since its frontal armoured plates aren't implemented either. As well as buletproof glass isn't quite good at stopping bullets.
In summary - the whole vehicle is a huge dissapointment.

Very disappointing to see this artificial balancing from BI.

Why is everything so balanced in Arma 3?

For an example, in Arma 2 russians had some massive firepower on their Mi-8 (120 rockets to be exact)! No american helicopter had such suppressive ground-engaging power. Not to mention their Ka-52, which is a beast.

OK, in Arma 2 weapons are not balanceable, because there everybody only took 1-3 shots and was dead.

Wait until BI nerfs the machine guns so that you need to hit them 20 times before they die...

Real war is not balanced in any way.

i am not sure, but the word "balanceable" does exist.

Yes, it was one of my biggest complaints even when the first ArmA 3 alpha launched, everything was balanced, besides the weapons, riflemans had EXACTLY the same loadout, planes usually have the same loadout, armors have the same loadout, its annoying.