Yellow14 1 Posted March 12, 2013 Is there any way RPG's could be more realistic as far as vehicle damage goes? I know their are coding limitations, but one hit kills for APC's and MRAP's/Ifrit's every time is fairly unrealistic because RPG's and LAW's do not always get direct hits. Maybe the damage from them could be scaled down to disable Hunter/Ifrits with one hit, disable APC's with two hits, and kill tanks with 4-5 hits. I created a much longer post on this last time but it didn't post so this is the short version. RPG's are also wildly inaccurate. ---------- Post added at 19:04 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ---------- I found the original post I created. Cheers I searched for this topic in the forums, but did not find anything that directly related to the issue so I figured I would create a new post about it. I have been playing since Operation Flashpoint and one thing that has always bothered me is the effectiveness of RPG's and LAW's. They seem overly powerful compared to real life. I know that the RPG7v can penetrate roughly 15 inches of armor, but that is only on a direct hit. Most APC's (armored personnel carriers) survive more than one hit from an RPG or LAW in real life because the hits often deflect off or do not fully penetrate their armor. I know their are coding limitations as far as damage modeling goes but (disabled/blown off tracks, disabled turrets or main guns) I think it would be interesting to see more of a scale for vehicle damage aside from one hit kills. Perhaps the damage effectiveness of the RPG's could be scaled down as to disable, but not destroy, a Hunter/Ifrit from one hit, disable an APC from two/three hits, and a MBT (main battle tank) with four/five hits. Another issue is accuracy of anti-tank weapons. In real life most RPG's and other anti-tank weapons are only accurate for short distances. Much like the inaccuracy of the MK19 grenade launcher firing from a mount where you have to "walk" the fire into a target. I know that balancing is an issue and I think that can be overcome by creating fewer vehicles in multiplayer missions. Another thing that balances gameplay is the number of shots each anti-tank soldier gets which is around three. Thank you for the hard work for this upcoming game. I look forward to it very much. P.S. I have fired myself, or instructed on the operation, of a wide number of weapons systems such as the RPG-7 and AT4 as well as MK19 and Russian heavy machine guns while instructing Iraqi Marines. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TG Marksman X 10 Posted March 12, 2013 RPG's are pretty deadly. This is an RPG-29 (apparently). Javelin is far, far more destructive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JojoTheSlayer 35 Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) No way the armor on the current Alpha cars would survive a hit from a RPG made to take out tanks. If the shape charge penetrates into a enclose air pocket you will get a explosion because of super heated air expanding faster than the speed of sound and people would regardless of vehicle damage most probably die from the shock wave itself. (Maybe a slight comfort to those who have lost people in armor seeing them burn up like this T72 or that BMP2 video.) That said if we act like RPGs (HEAT to make it simple) where fired at tanks with more armor one could argue that they could use a similar system to Iron Front, but just make the ingame hits act like AP (as opposed to HEAT "laser" beam penetration) with deflection. Because in IF you can have deflecting shots from weapons that have more power to penetrate its current targets armor. I doubt we will see anything like the IF armor system in A3 though. Btw, anybody else that find the A3A "RPG Missiles" to be kinda oxymoronic? The difference between a rocket and a missile is that a missile is in some way guided after launch while a rocket is not. The R stands for Rocket. Edited March 12, 2013 by JojoTheSlayer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
looter 10 Posted March 12, 2013 How are the launchers inaccurate? They are completely guided missiles unless you fire at something without locking on, even then they are dead-on with extremely low drop and don't move around at all. As for having to kill tanks in 4-5 hits, no thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chocolate 1 Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) Yellow14 is talking from a modern day perspective on the current RPG7 system and US manufactured LAWs/SMAWs. These smaller rockets are very much dangerous to the MATV (The game calls it the Hunter), but they don't always penetrate the armor. AT4s are a larger rocket and are designed to penetrate "medium" armor and are intended to be mass produced to facilitate infantry against armor. The Javelin is the most advanced infantry mobile/man-packable anti-armor system in use by the US and is locked on by heat signature. The missile of the Javelin can also be commanded to fire up and come down directly on-top of a target such as the turret on a main battle tank. It is completely fair to say that the AT4 and Javelin equivalents(Such as the RPG29 shown in the video linked above) would destroy a MATV or Ifrit design. The smaller rockets such as from an RPG7 or LAW may not puncture, but would certainly do damage. Especially the engine block section. MATVs are not armored there. The hood is a fiberglass construction. The interior is essentially an armored box with a V shape bottom for mine resistance. Since this game is based in the future, how the Devs want to manipulate reality/game-play/engine limitations is uncertain, but I would think it wouldn't be too difficult to create an angle of impact and direction of impact system to regulate the effect on target. Note: RPG7 and older variants are most commonly used in Afghanistan where the MATV sees service. Its entirely likely that other RPG systems which have seen less circulation in recent conflicts, like the RPG22 are much more effective. Edited March 12, 2013 by Chocolate Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellow14 1 Posted March 13, 2013 I am referring to the RPG7 and LAW, smaller man portable rocket launchers. In Operation Flashpoint, and ARMA 1/2 a single RPG-7 would take out all of the APC's in the game(including strikers with slat armor designed to defeat RPG's). However, those are entirely different than MANPAD systems and Anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM's) such as thig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet which is also known as the AT-14 and was used by Hezbollah against the Israeli Mirkava in 2006. Those systems are designed to defeat main battle tanks such as the Abrams and T-90 but also operate by locking onto the tank with some form of guidance system. They are also not usually carried on a single persons back, but are instead fired off a tripod. And from what is known even the AT-14 failed to kill the crews of the Merkava tanks they did hit, though they did render the tanks in-operable. If it were possible some form of deflection system for rockets hitting vehicles would be great and make the game far more dynamic, though it may not be what most people want when they shoot an enemy tank. I guess the difference I feel is that in real life enemy armor represents a huge problem for infantry. Even if they posses a Javelin anti-tank weapon they still have to employ it and in most cases they call in air-support, such as the A-10C or Su-25 Frogfoot to handle MBT's. Good discussion, I like where this is going. I searched the forums but didn't really find any threads on it. Maybe there is someway we could bring this up to the dev's and see what they say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TG Marksman X 10 Posted March 13, 2013 I am referring to the RPG7 and LAW, smaller man portable rocket launchers. In Operation Flashpoint, and ARMA 1/2 a single RPG-7 would take out all of the APC's in the game(including strikers with slat armor designed to defeat RPG's). However, those are entirely different than MANPAD systems and Anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM's) such as thig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet which is also known as the AT-14 and was used by Hezbollah against the Israeli Mirkava in 2006. Those systems are designed to defeat main battle tanks such as the Abrams and T-90 but also operate by locking onto the tank with some form of guidance system. They are also not usually carried on a single persons back, but are instead fired off a tripod. And from what is known even the AT-14 failed to kill the crews of the Merkava tanks they did hit, though they did render the tanks in-operable. If it were possible some form of deflection system for rockets hitting vehicles would be great and make the game far more dynamic, though it may not be what most people want when they shoot an enemy tank. I guess the difference I feel is that in real life enemy armor represents a huge problem for infantry. Even if they posses a Javelin anti-tank weapon they still have to employ it and in most cases they call in air-support, such as the A-10C or Su-25 Frogfoot to handle MBT's. Good discussion, I like where this is going. I searched the forums but didn't really find any threads on it. Maybe there is someway we could bring this up to the dev's and see what they say. I see where you are coming from now. I agree 100%. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chocolate 1 Posted March 13, 2013 Definitely on board with you Yellow14, if its technically feasible from a game engine standpoint. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NordKindchen 12 Posted March 13, 2013 A basic damage system is much needed. It doesnt need to be all worked out BUT the fundament for an enthusiastic advanced damage model should be layed by BI! For example: The function of altering vehicle textures ( to simulate different damages) A hit detection system that notices different hit angles and different hit zones. The possibility to deactivate certain vehicle functions based on triggers (for example: Hit in turreet = no turret rotation) If they implement these - the community will do the rest and they can keep working on other important things. Best regards Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beagle 684 Posted March 13, 2013 It's an old ArmA problem that traces back to the use of hitpoints. I've seen a vehicle hit by a RPG myself...nobody was harmed. The Jet penetrated the driver door and blew out the commander door on contact, that was all. A RPG hit to a light vehicle is not more dangerous than a single hit from a Heavy MG. It is a fact that for thin armoured vehicles a HMG is more dangerous than a single RPG. HEAT arheads designed for thick 600m armour perform naturally poor in 40mm armour. This lesson was learned at nauseum in Afghanistan and Irak but still die not make it into games. The only game utilizing the RV so far that die represented that somewhat right was Iron Front: Liberation 1944 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellow14 1 Posted March 13, 2013 Perhaps there's a way for BI to address this somewhat with the code. Maybe if there are enough of us on board they will look into it. It would be interesting to see it implemented on helicopters as well. I know there were some mods made for Operation flashpoint (BAS) I think, that implemented a script when choppers where hit that simulated Blackhawk down. It was fun for mision making to have the ability to rescue the crew of a downed chopper. It seems now that the engine is so robust it would handle these things much more easily. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lugiahua 26 Posted March 13, 2013 It's possible to work around the health point system, ACE mod had much precise damage model on armored vehicle, also some addon makers created aircraft that has individual parts could be destroyed but the aircraft remains integrity. (like F/A-18 addon in Arma1) ---------- Post added at 08:30 ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 ---------- A basic damage system is much needed. It doesnt need to be all worked out BUT the fundament for an enthusiastic advanced damage model should be layed by BI! For example: The function of altering vehicle textures ( to simulate different damages) A hit detection system that notices different hit angles and different hit zones. The possibility to deactivate certain vehicle functions based on triggers (for example: Hit in turreet = no turret rotation) If they implement these - the community will do the rest and they can keep working on other important things. Best regards We already have it since Arma1. If you flied aircraft in Arma series, you should noticed that engines and tail rotors could be disabled independently by damage. I am pretty sure turret and tank guns could be disable too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maturin 12 Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) The weakest HEAT warhead in existence is still going to sent its copper stream/slug in one side of an MRAP and out the other, effortlessly. Same goes for most APCs, with their armor that's designed to stop 12.7mm rounds and not much else. However, this is only going to mean a catastrophic fireball and absolute destruction of the vehicle in relatively rare cases. Refer to ACE's range of results for a better picture. The thing is, light HEAT weapons are designed first and foremost to punch holes in thick armor (note, the AT4 and some others are supposedly optimized for greater after armor effects). This means that sometimes, you will just get a hole in your vehicle and not much more. If there are no combustible or living objects in the path of the penetrating jet, your vehicle isn't going to magically explode. You don't always get very much blast overpressure, heat, or spall. I mean, people on foot survive RPGs going off next to them all the time. This means that RPG impacts on cars and MRAPs should have a CHANCE to detonate ammo and set fuel on fire, but in most cases, the vehicle will simply be disabled, with the crew injured or killed. But you shouldn't see total destruction and instant, unavoidable death. The difference (and here is where I start to hypothesize) is probably the circumstances of the impact, and the type of armor you're penetrating. A thin-skinned MRAP doesn't have much material to turn into spall. A humvee is not an airtight space, meaning that overpressure and heat can simply funnel out of the vehicle. There is lots of empty space, not taken up by people, ammo and fuel. All this as compared to an MBT, which can still absorb penetrating hits in non-critical areas, but is also a terrible place to be if the crew department is penetrated. Even then, there is a huge difference between the Syrian war video earlier, and the RPG-29 penetration of an Abrams tank, which did not seriously injure the crew and only drilled a small hole in the side of the turret. Don't kid yourself that it's because American tanks are better. So what do we need? A penetration-based system that models angle of incidence, RHA equivalencies, ERA, KE vs HEAT. ACE has accomplished all this already. What they can't accomplish is varying wreck states for vehicles, with a middle ground between popped tires and smouldering ruin. Edited March 13, 2013 by maturin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hartmann 10 Posted March 13, 2013 Ask ACE for permission to use their RPG mechanics. There, perfect balance and realism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maio 293 Posted March 13, 2013 From my POV it's a balancing act. The fact that we have a weight system now, prevents us from caring a large nr. of projectiles for our launchers ( as a individual solider) Look at Escape from Startis. At the beginning of the mission your biggest friend is your only AT guy. If he is good enough he takes out the Ifrit, your golden ( \lack of multiple AT guy;s get compensated by the missiles power) if not... well have fun avoiding that thing(if you were smart enough to stay hidden while your AT gets mowed down) Of course now, I am thinking purely from the Alpha content point of view and mission specific, but I guess this would apply in other cases just as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maturin 12 Posted March 13, 2013 It should only take one NLAW to destroy any armored vehicle. It's top attack, after all... And once we get light AT, the MBT's should be essentially immune from the frontal arcs and killable in shot from the rear. Even without an ACE-like system, it's not like this is at all difficult to design, not is it complicated, difficult to understand, sim-like or fun-killing in any way. Just add some realistic randomness to the results. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beagle 684 Posted March 13, 2013 This is a RPG-7 hit on a HMMWV door...that's all what will happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
naizarak 4 Posted March 13, 2013 yeah but what happened to the crew? it'd be a miracle if the front passenger and driver weren't sprayed by a jet of molten hot copper Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beagle 684 Posted March 13, 2013 yeah but what happened to the crew? it'd be a miracle if the front passenger and driver weren't sprayed by a jet of molten hot copperAs I wrote before...there wre a dozend incidents of that kind in A-stan...a lot of them left a hole in the vehicle but the vehicle could escape and drive on...only ligght injuries. If you get hit by the jet its the same as if hit once by HMG. HMGs and IEDs are more a thread to light vehicles as RPGs are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maturin 12 Posted March 13, 2013 The more metal the RPG has to chew up, the more damage it will do. You will find other pictures of humvees with the whole engine block strewn over the highway, so a better in-game compromise would be to disable to vehicle (randomization needed, again), injure the passengers and treat the rocket like a penetrating projectile of high caliber. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chocolate 1 Posted March 13, 2013 From my POV it's a balancing act.The fact that we have a weight system now, prevents us from caring a large nr. of projectiles for our launchers ( as a individual solider) Look at Escape from Startis. At the beginning of the mission your biggest friend is your only AT guy. If he is good enough he takes out the Ifrit, your golden ( \lack of multiple AT guy;s get compensated by the missiles power) if not... well have fun avoiding that thing(if you were smart enough to stay hidden while your AT gets mowed down) Of course now, I am thinking purely from the Alpha content point of view and mission specific, but I guess this would apply in other cases just as well. I think that maoinaze brings decent point that what is desirable in single-player may not be desirable for multiplier, or more specifically PVP/TVT As Beagle has mentioned before with his first hand accounts of MATVs and MRAPs in Afghanistan, the usual result of a hit was not fatal or disastrous. None of the vehicles in my AO (Area of Operation) ever took a hit (Damn Taliban aren't the best shots sometimes, thank God) However, I did have multiple Marines who had experienced similar incidents tell me that on the MATV specifically (The hunter in game) would generally blow the door off, but the personnel inside would be ok, if not a terrible headache lol. I'm not saying that you want your vehicle taking RPG fire, or that it can't be lethal, but its not a "silver bullet." Overall I think the game would benefit from a more nuanced armor system beyond, I shoot it and it explodes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PFC Magician 10 Posted March 13, 2013 2030 new tech, rigthnow tanks armors have explosive reactive armor (E.R.A.) and the roof is reinforced with titanium, there are also prototypes that can hide from thermal imaging. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maturin 12 Posted March 13, 2013 What does that have to do with anything? Also, ERA takes the form of visible blocks on the exterior (ie, we can look and see whether it is there or not), and has limited coverage. And it's not likely to do much to protect an MRAP anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kireta21 13 Posted March 14, 2013 What we really need (and what we can actually do, unlike fully realistic penetration system) is component damage system for land vehicles like one we have in helicopters ince ArmA2, where Mi-24D can take 100+ rounds AND RPG, and survive, but at the same time 3-4 12.7mm rounds can take out engine, nearby miss by Stinger can damage rotor enough to make it unoperable, and lucky 7.62 through sideglass can kill pilot. So basically, system not based on weapon Hit value, but on model (vehicle parts) and caliber (how deep damage penetrate through model). RPG hits engine = mobility kill, maybe fire spreading on rest of vehicle forcing crew out. RPG or 40mm hits wheels = mobility kill, but reparable by crew (spares in vehicle's inventory). RPG hits crew compartement = minimal damage to vehicle, but whoever was sitting there was shit out of luck. Vehicle taken out in any way = job's done. No need for big balls of fire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
On_Sabbatical 11 Posted March 14, 2013 I will sum it,this subject is directly related to "Vehicle damage model" thread ! no real damage models is big issue of the game ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites