A real tank Hp system.

[Txheat 10]

Currently the system as is does not deserve to be any better at displaying tank warfare than a CoD game. The system as is does not even make sense, the system as is needs to be fixed. However I know it would be pain a huge pain to actually make such a system happen. However I think it can be done and must be done. If not for ARMA2 for ARMA3 or any game you make that claims to be realistic for now on.

There will be problems though, thousands if not millions of problems. The first which almost anyone will point out is that much of todays current Topnotch tank protection is classified. Much combat infomation is disputed, and almost any comparison of a Russian V Western tank could result in a huge flame war. I think its about time the the community and BiS come together and try to make some compromise that will allow accurate tank on tank combat system.

Here are my ideas, hear them out.

1. Get rid of the Hit point system, this is the major problem as is.

2. Contact devlopers that have an accurate Tank V Tank combat system. communication about items such as this should be discussed. Devs should really work together on this, using what data we have and making a impartial system will be the hardest thing to do.

3. Talk to Former Tank commanders. There are always a few that aren't fanatics and would tell you their honest combat history of their tanks. I know alot of Serbians that would love to tell their story about M84 (a T-72 clone) preformance. I am sure we could find Iran-Iraq war vets Angolan war vets. Chechan War vets and we could get some honest history about them and learn alot about their tank how it preformed and make a system based off of that.

4. Get community input. That is first and formost in a Devs mind any radical change to the system must be supported by the community.

5. More weapon types if you must keep a HP system and large amount of tank rounds must be added.

6. More Tank types. again if you must keep the HP system make diff tank export varients. And base that off of real world preformance of those tanks. for example T-72S T-72Ms and T-72 Turms should be in the game anyways.

7. Make DLC tank Packs. People will buy them.

Excuse any english errors for it is not my first language.

Community what do you think? Have ideas? Hate me? Contribute help out we can all make this happen!

[Pulverizer 1]

I don't think BIS will make the tank armor very realistic for both game balance issues, and the amount of development time needed. It would be difficult to balance OA-like game if the west tanks were practically indestructable by OPFOR.

Meanwhile, use the ACE mod or buy Steel Beasts :p

[zwobot 19]

For a start I would be happy if the ATGMs in the T-90 and BMP-3 would be fixed at last. As it is now it is very difficult if not impossible to get those to fly in anything but a straight line into the ground on higher difficulty settings. Should be an easy fix in the config...

[Evil_Echo 11]

Opinion....

A more realistic vehicle damage system would be nice, so would a more realistic people damage system.

ACE tries to bring some of both requests to the game, but their methods are quirky and inconsistant. In part due to how some models are defined in this sim, other aspects difficult to explain. The overall effect is IMO unsatisfactory.

BIS could impliment a better damage system as well as an improved flight model. But at that point you are basically requesting that they tear up the current game engine and write a new one from scratch. That would not be cheap for BIS to write or us to purchase. The question then becomes are both parties willing to go through the effort of that massive task. My guess is no.

[gossamersolid 155]

I don't think BIS will make the tank armor very realistic for both game balance issues, and the amount of development time needed. It would be difficult to balance OA-like game if the west tanks were practically indestructable by OPFOR.

Meanwhile, use the ACE mod or buy Steel Beasts :p

I'm pretty sure the T-90 could damage the Abrams. Plus the Metis and Kornet was semi-recently used to fully disable Merkava Mk.IVs, so I think russian weaponry can disable western tanks pretty easily.

[Laqueesha 474]

I don't think BIS will make the tank armor very realistic for both game balance issues, and the amount of development time needed. It would be difficult to balance OA-like game if the west tanks were practically indestructable by OPFOR.

The game is already heavily unbalanced as is (USA, UK, Germany, Czech Republic, UNO, Chernarus, ION PMC vs Takistan). Remember that this is a military simulator; war is not balanced.

[whisper 0]

The hitpoint system is generic amongst all units in game, whatever their type (living units, vehicles, aircrafts, houses, etc...)

Making a tank system would mean breaking the generic into parts and simulations dedicated to each category, this is a huge task on its own, and I don't think it will happen. If it was a tank simulation, they would have done it

[Baff1 0]

I'm pretty sure the T-90 could damage the Abrams. Plus the Metis and Kornet was semi-recently used to fully disable Merkava Mk.IVs, so I think russian weaponry can disable western tanks pretty easily.

The T90 has the same weapon system as the T64. All Russian tanks can damage other tanks. NATO tank weapon systems have a lesser range and lower destructive power.

I think the difference in their weapon systems would provide for intresting use of tactics, perhaps with western tanks trying to fight in close quarters for the sabot advantage and Eastern tanks trying to fight in open ground for the missile advantage for example.

That is some fun I would like to model.

However, unless people have the view distance turned up to maximum, the major differences to these are never going to be realised in a game of this scale.

Perhaps all hits on armour could be assumed to do zero hps damage but have a chance of rolling a critical hit. A random hit that could damage a system or kill a crew member or start a fire or set off some ammunition for example.

This would also provide an opportunity for some funky destruction modelling. Everyone likes a good bit of destruction. I'd love to see reactive amour plates exploding or anti missile sytems being launched.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Baff1

[archbishop lazarus 24]

In my opinion, if you must keep the hit point system, use larger numbers for hitpoints. I dont know the precise numbers so I guess: The T-90 have around 800hp, the T-34 has around 300. If I make for example a T-55, I want to give it much more hp than a T-34, because its much heavier armored. I give it 500hp. The problem is that the T-72 also have around 500hp despite that in RL it has 410mm KE turret armor, while the T-55 has only 203mm.

The solution: max front KE armor*3 Then, the T-34 would have 270hp, the T-55 - 609hp, the T-72 - 1230, and the T-90 would have 2400-2500.

The second problem with tanks is their handling. I have driven a few armoured vehicles, T-55, BMP-1, MTLBu, Shilka. I also driven a Bobcat, which is really similar to ingame tracked vehicles, just much slower, so I can assume that the developers modeled the handling after these little construction machines. But its very-very far from real life. A real tank is nowhere near a Bobcat, completely different. For example, T-72 Balkans on fire has quite realistic system.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

IThe solution: max front KE armor*3 Then, the T-34 would have 270hp, the T-55 - 609hp, the T-72 - 1230, and the T-90 would have 2400-2500.

You're not seeing the finer delicate balance. Mines and satchels (and tows and hellfires and whatnot) are also supposed to be dangerous to tanks. Increase damage and what happens? Now you can take out a whole lot of thinner skinned vehicles or buildings that are supposed to take a beating. Increase those, but now you can't have bunker busters (MAAWS/SMAW/AT4) that work, and also renders any previous material (A2 content) completely useless since it's not updated anymore.

See where this is going? Try to think hard about it and you end up in a vicious circle of trying to solve new problems you just created. HPs can stay pretty much as it is, but we need something to handle special case stuff. Such as armor penetrability, angles of hit, speed of (KE) projectile. Maybe a satchel won't be able to kill a tank as easily, but at least the tracks would be subject to damage causing a mobility kill.

All I'm saying is that it is impossible to achieve any sort of perfectness working with HPs alone. ACE came a long way in Arma2, but it still suffered pretty severe problems. Not sure about the current status, I only assume it has improved to the better naturally. Also, the biggest problems for tanks aren't tank vs tank scenarios, but tank vs light AT that you can hit with from obnoxious distances. I don't mind heavy guided AT being able to take out any kind of tank. I do mind PG-7V and PG-7VL being as effective as they are, and PG-7VR (the true AT warhead against MBTs) flying straight ahead for miles (effective distance is about 75 meters!)

Edited October 6, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Yes, I completely agree that we absolutely need an armor system, (script) but it is very unlikely that BIS will do such feature, so unfortunately the HP system will remain.

But anyway, dont you think that if you can kill an Abrams (or even a T-55!) with a T-34 fairly easily is really miserable and arcadish? Or that the T-90 has only 2.5x more hitpoints? Increased hitpoints would solve this at least.

[maturin 12]

The ACE system works around the hitpoint problem admirably. However they are hamstrung by the shoddy hit detection.

If BIS can make vehicle windshields and tires that work flawlessly (on everything but that goddamn BRDM), then segmenting a tank into different armor classes is simplicity itself. Add some more elegant scripted damage, an element of randomness and a whole shitload of testing, and there you have it.

[Evil_Echo 11]

The problem is, with the current system you can tune it to be close to reality with only a couple of armor/weapon combinations. Other stuff is too strong or too weak.

[savagegoose 10]

ok so modern tank defense systems are classified, so do a ww2 tank system, all thats declassified and there's plenty of data out there.

[LJF 0]

I don't think BIS will make the tank armor very realistic for both game balance issues, and the amount of development time needed. It would be difficult to balance OA-like game if the west tanks were practically indestructable by OPFOR.

Which is why ArmA will very likely remain a game and not a simulator, despite what the marketing claims. Kind of annoying too, it has such potential as a sim, but I imagine there's a lot more money in the non-sim market.

[max power 21]

Which is why ArmA will very likely remain a game and not a simulator, despite what the marketing claims. Kind of annoying too, it has such potential as a sim, but I imagine there's a lot more money in the non-sim market.

:confused:

I'm having a hard time with this premise that because the damage system is simple and general that BIS is getting more revenue from it.

[carlostex 38]

NATO tank weapon systems have a lesser range and lower destructive power.

Well that´s really your opinion because you have no proof of this. I´m not saying who has the better tank system but your assumption is rather dubious my friend.

[max power 21]

Well that´s really your opinion because you have no proof of this. I´m not saying who has the better tank system but your assumption is rather dubious my friend.

Why? The Russian antitank rounds are larger (more destructive power), and they can fire antitank guided missiles from the barrel (longer range). The assumption, even if incorrect for certain comparable shells, seems sound to me.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

The Russian antitank rounds are larger...

Which ones?

HEAT is larger, but their performance isnt better than 120mm, its about the same. But they are useless against the frontal armor of modern tanks.

APFSDS: They are actually smaller. Russians use short rod penetrators, while NATO uses long rod, this is one of the reasons why 120mm is much more powerful. The most modern 3BM42M projectile can penetrate only 600-650mm armor, which is quite miserable compared to the 120mm M829A3 (800-820) and the DM53/63 (800-830). This is barely enough against an M1A1HA Abrams, and completely useless against even the Leo-2A4.

ATGM: Russian sources extremely overestimate them. Yes, they are powerful. But the sources forget that modern tanks have 2 armor values: KE (APFSDS) and CE (HEAT). Although the most modern Invar-M missile can penetrate 800-900mm armor, which is quite remarkable, western tanks have 1500-2000mm armor vs HEAT, so missiles are useless against their frontal armor.

[whisper 0]

Which ones?

HEAT is larger, but their performance isnt better than 120mm, its about the same. But they are useless against the frontal armor of modern tanks.

APFSDS: They are actually smaller. Russians use short rod penetrators, while NATO uses long rod, this is one of the reasons why 120mm is much more powerful. The most modern 3BM42M projectile can penetrate only 600-650mm armor, which is quite miserable compared to the 120mm M829A3 (800-820) and the DM53/63 (800-830). This is barely enough against an M1A1HA Abrams, and completely useless against even the Leo-2A4.

ATGM: Russian sources extremely overestimate them. Yes, they are powerful. But the sources forget that modern tanks have 2 armor values: KE (APFSDS) and CE (HEAT). Although the most modern Invar-M missile can penetrate 800-900mm armor, which is quite remarkable, western tanks have 1500-2000mm armor vs HEAT, so missiles are useless against their frontal armor.

Could be argued this is all western testing, sources and propaganda as well :)

Not that I'm specialist, but all this "XXX sources aren't good, mine are" always look suspiscious to me

[kireta21 13]

Could be argued this is all western testing, sources and propaganda as well :)

Not that I'm specialist, but all this "XXX sources aren't good, mine are" always look suspiscious to me

Well, there are still laws of physics. As long as they don't use materials we don't know even existed, kinetic energy can be easily calculated if we know speed and mass. Hardness of uranium or tungstein alloys and carbides is no secret as well. Calculating armor resistance is bit more tricky as we don't know for sure what kind of materials were used.

As for modern HEAT rounds, it's very likely Russian ones are stronger. New NATO HEAT rounds are designed rather for range and accuracy than penetration, as HEAT usefulness against modern MBT (covered with Cobham, DU, ERA, NERA etc.) is rather doubtful unless fired at side or rear armor. For example estimated penetration for BK-29 HEAT is ~700mm, which sound pretty good, until you realise T-90 which carry it, has like 1300-1400mm vs.CE on turret and ~1000-1100mm on glacis.

Edited October 11, 2010 by boota

[maturin 12]

Those are stated, estimated equivalents, not actual thicknesses, right?

[Evil_Echo 11]

boota:

Exterior and terminal ballistics involve a lot more than just knowing kinetic energy and material hardness. Armor ratings are semi-standardized in terms of mm of rolled-homogenous armor, but no major power uses that material for modern equipment anymore. Similar to city/highway fuel consumption ratings, the RHA value only tells part of the story. You should only trust it for comparing A to B - not to predict actual behavior in a real-life situation.

Likewise - you can't readily accurately predict the behavior of either ammunition or armor using simple formula anymore. It either takes dedicated time running 2d or 3d finite-element codes on a LARGE computer or a lot of field tests. Often you end up doing both to validate your model. The specific results are often classified, leaving the typical public intelligence sources to take their best guess of an item's performance - usually not far off the mark, but still not absolutely certain.

In either case, BIS is not likely to have access to that level of military information nor capable of reverse engineering the numbers. So it falls back on those public source guesses, which in some cases are not always in agreement. That leads to the arguments of who's guess is correct.

Rather that attempting the impossible at this level of cost and performance, what is needed is an open (as in publicly available) system that uses reasonable approximations. Doing that would ensure fairness, we could verify that even if a value was off it would be consistantly off across similar items ( like T-90 vs M1A2 ).

[maturin 12]

Even a detailed armor system with scientific insider information would be highly randomized in any case. How else can you account for a 23mm round getting stuck in an Abrams' grill and immobilizing it?

In ACE you can kill Abrams crew members through the frontal armor with an RPG-7 if you hit it thirty or forty times.

[Ulanthorn 10]

Those are stated, estimated equivalents, not actual thicknesses, right?

RHA is always a number of a theoretical equivalent in rolled homogeneous armour steel. Light vehicles and APCs or IFVs are not measured in RHA anymore but in STANAG 4569 protection levels. That's mainly because AT warheads are rather uneffective against light armoured vehicles. A 12.7mm HMG is more dangerous for light armoured vehicles compared to a RPG-7. Edited October 11, 2010 by Ulanthorn