Buy Iron Front armor penetration and implement in ArmA3

[Wolfstriked 11]

We need better armor system for infantry also...just saying.;)

[mr.g-c 6]

I have added some reference topics to my post at the bugtracker:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7587#c22339

[Dwarden 1124]

MoW: Assault Squad system... http://adrenaline.uol.com.br/forum/images/smilies/obsequious.pnghttp://adrenaline.uol.com.br/forum/images/smilies/sweetjesus.pnghttp://adrenaline.uol.com.br/forum/images/smilies/ultimo.png

Just another guide for those that aren't familiar with the game, it has more tactics then game mechanics, but still it is something nice: http://baserespawn.blogspot.com.br/2011/07/mowas-tank-combat-guide.html

what ? it has better armor, penetration, internal damage system than majority of games ... sure it's not WW2online or IL-2:1946 but MOW:AS is definitely quite good

[max power 21]

words and a video

That's not a damage system. That's just a physical simulation with forces throwing stuff around.

[Smurf 12]

what ? it has better armor, penetration, internal damage system than majority of games ... sure it's not WW2online or IL-2:1946 but MOW:AS is definitely quite good

I agree with you, even mentioned MoWAS in other occasions before.

A system like that would be more than enough IMO. Bonus for the visual damage, not only for falling off pieces but also for burned\damaged textures.

[nodunit 397]

Bits falling off is nice but not mandatory more detailed decals might be better for that (wouldn't require nearly as much remodelling for one) ..really the most 'destruction' I'd like to see is fire or smoke billowing out of the turret hatches (or perhaps a safety mechanism? Though consider ammo is always loadable I'd assume things such as blast doors are always open) this would indicate more or less destroyed without having the whole thing erupt in an explosion.

It takes time sure but it's one of the things soo many people have been practically BEGGING for for several games, one of those things that are foundational and greatly changing in gameplay.

An MBT is supposed to be an asset that inspires fear in the enemy force rather than "oh hey its just like everything else, a few extra hits is all"

It's not just infantry that would feel the change but other vehicles as well, no longer would you be able to laugh at a tank in an anti air vehicle (see abrams vs tunguska in A2) or a grenade launching vehicle, or hell even a helicopter pilot.

In the A2 cobra I laughed at armor because I could just blast away with the main gun regardless of where...oh sure the front took a few more hits than the back but in the end I was able to destroy them at any angle as opposed to having my rounds bouncing off the front. More often than not, after running out of missile it becomes more of a 'dumping ammo' ordeal as opposed to flanking to try and hit the sides or back.

Edited April 23, 2013 by NodUnit

[maturin 12]

Not to mention the fact that the Cobra's cannon should do jack squat against a tank anyways.

If you want to get really detailed, I guess eventually it would disable the rooftop MG or weaken a track.

[dm 9]

Not to mention the fact that the Cobra's cannon should do jack squat against a tank anyways.

If you want to get really detailed, I guess eventually it would disable the rooftop MG or weaken a track.

Or you could be realistic, where it will quickly destroy anything that is not under armour, depending on the direction of fire and how you are able to hit the target (barrel of main armament/tracks/roadwheels/suspension/roof mounted weapons/roof mounted equipment/engine etc etc)

Tanks are NOT some magical indestructible force. In reality, they are really rather fragile...

[scrim 1]

Iron Front has a terrible penetration system, and that's pretty much all there's to it. Don't believe me? Place a Tiger in one end, and a Sherman in the other. A direct hit won't knock out the Sherman, or cause its crew to bail. Instead, it will keep firing, and after perhaps 4-5 hits in the front armour, start killing the crewmen of the Tiger.

[Simas 12]

IMHO the best armor penetration system is hands down in Combat Mission games.

Edited April 23, 2013 by simast

[Blaf 1]

Isn't there some middleware solution for armor simulation that might be used? Probably not, but im just curious...

[max power 21]

Not to mention the fact that the Cobra's cannon should do jack squat against a tank anyways.

If you want to get really detailed, I guess eventually it would disable the rooftop MG or weaken a track.

Tuning Arma's current system should be able to get those results. There's minimalhit, and also the penetration materials which seem to actually have some influence on the damage stuff does. We were having some trouble where a material assignment made the wheels of our BRDM-2 all but indestructible to small arms.

[maturin 12]

The abstract formula measuring caliber and velocity can't model real-world armor anti-armor materials, though.

And as for minimalhit, that's just one simple script property that--AHEM--shouldn't have taken 8-10 years of development to implement.

[max power 21]

The abstract formula measuring caliber and velocity can't model real-world armor anti-armor materials, though.

And as for minimalhit, that's just one simple script property that--AHEM--shouldn't have taken 8-10 years of development to implement.

Well if you had this simulation for shotshell at least you would be able to tune penetration materials and weapons to reflect the expected behaviour. I think, as of now, the cannon caliber and other anti tank weapons are what's lacking in detail.

[NacroxNicke 11]

IMHO the best armor penetration system is hands down in Combat Mission games.

Yes, it's very sophisticated (It even used the quality of the plates in relation of the year when playing the battle to see if the plate will be more sophisticated or not), however it's difficult to implement on a direct game like ARMA 3

The angle of armor or attack is neglected by the caliber of the gun in relation of the armor thickness plate, so it's totally different to the WW2 games and even more to the MOW:AS system. Why? Because newer guns fire more faster, and with more caliber, and with more sophisticated rounds (compare an APDS round of WW2, with an APFSDS of an abrams), heck, even most of the damage is done not because of the shot penetrating itself, but because of the sharpnel blowing up stuff inside the tank itself, the plates don't win by being more thick as in WW2, the armor works because it uses more techniques to disperse the kinetic force (and without using round armor or angle in the plates).

And, as locational damage, I think that was present even in OFP days, the game itself adds HP to every zone, so the thing of "Wait to the tank to advance and fire in the back!!" is more related to the config of the game rather than doing a really "scripted-heavy" system. (remember the dumbing down turret of OFP days?, just a bad example of it, even CAVS made progression towards it and that was a lot of years ago)

So, what it's need is just a system that can actually feel like it is a good simulation of what a tank is, some suspension of disbelief has to be made, maybe something middleterm with emphasis on the calibers, ammo types, and stuff, I think some changes needs to be made before though, like the tanks spinning on their axis when used by the AI, or the incredible easy turns that tanks can make in the wheels on difficult terrain, etc.

[viper[cww] 14]

Removed

Edited April 26, 2013 by VIPER[CWW]
spelt armor instead of armour, damn you bis for wrecking my spelling!

[Mirudes 1]

For me, a key feature for ArmA3.

It highlights the opportunity to develop a strategy, to communicate, and work in teams.

That's what BIS-games differs from other shooters!

[Second 0]

Yes, it's very sophisticated (It even used the quality of the plates in relation of the year when playing the battle to see if the plate will be more sophisticated or not), however it's difficult to implement on a direct game like ARMA 3

Combat Mission Shock Force do place itself in Modern Syria. And basically their new engine works in 1:1 scale which means that in the end it isn't different from ArmA when it comes to details and how to model them. Basically one could play FPS in it.

They have even ERA-blocks modeled (you blow one up and you have cap there), Slat-armors, modern countermeasures (Sthora, dunno is there other's). Armor and ammo are naturally classified so they have to try to guess what can penetrate what, but it's there (not actual metric values are displayed). Very realistic, very well modeled. So it's doable alright. And Battlefront had only one coder at time who coded it in there (the whole engine).

But i don't give rat's arse how BIS does it. Current level is fine by me.