grenades MUST be more lethal

[Niklas 1]

I am dissapointed that I have to make a thread to get attention to this Issue. This should have been changed a long time ago. Thing is, currently grenades in Arma 3 are completly useless and you allways have to throw atleast two to take out an enemy.

Grenades should kill the player if they stand a few meters next to it, but currently you survive them even if you stand on them or lie right besides or ontop one.

[Beagle 684]

In fact it's a bit troublesome because IRL grenades rarely kill the heavily armoured soldiers of today but rather cripple or knock them out. theres a limit to what 60-80 gramms of TNT or a similar explosive can do.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Beagle

[scrim 1]

Eh, yes they do. Body armour and helmets don't help when you get sprayed by shrapnel in the neck, throat, limbs, etc.

[comp_uter15776 1]

The whole idea of body armour, helmets, and other protective gear, is to stop shrapnel piercing you.

[NicotinKickballovich 1]

Hand-grenades in ArmA 3 are actually pretty deadly, I've thrown more than a few and most of the time it ends up with the enemy dead. Just look at this video where someone demonstrates how they work if for example thrown in the middle of a crowd. My guess is you had them thrown too far or they had some sort of an obstacle, blocking all or most shrapnel from reaching your target. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_jM6Pz3qqw

[Beagle 684]

Eh, yes they do. Body armour and helmets don't help when you get sprayed by shrapnel in the neck, throat, limbs, etc.

Usully grenades do not tend to explode into your neck. exposureto a grenade in a 10m readius equals beeing shot by a 12 gauge shotgun at 24m with 2mm pellets. Every basic 2,4mm Protection google will stop that. and it is a know fact that casualties from grenades and IEDs are high but lethality is extremely low since the indroduction of standard STAGNAG IV level Body Armour all across the whole NATO. The penetration power of the shrapnel is rther low and the idead of a grenade is the same like a mine...to produce casualties and not necesarrly fatalities...you throw a grenade in an attack attempt to soften the defenders up and finish them off with rifles or smgs.

against modern armourd personall the lethal effectiveness of shrapnell is less than 5m and even for unprotected personell is less than 10m

Edited August 15, 2013 by Beagle

[Niklas 1]

I am just dissapointed, If you stand right ontop a grenade you shouldn't be alive, and this currently is the case in arma 3. It isn't just injury from shrapnel, but that close to a grenade you wouldn't have your legs.

[Sneakson 1]

Frog blast the vent core!

[Beagle 684]

I am just dissapointed, If you stand right ontop a grenade you shouldn't be alive, and this currently is the case in arma 3. It isn't just injury from shrapnel, but that close to a grenade you wouldn't have your legs.

We are talking about simple hand grenades, shrapnel weapons with use 60 gramms of TNT...that's nothing that woud blow anything off from you exept you hold in in your hand or have it tucked into your vest..forget the hollywood movie shit. The explosion that follows a grenade throw is tiny compared to even the smallest demolition charges of 100 gramms TNT....its the wave of shrapnell (Steel Balls to be exact) that make the difference.

The Grenade without the shrapnel mantle is so weak on its own its just used to blow of doors etc. It's about as effetive like a coke can full of Black Powder and nails and all it should do is bring you down instantly...well an here comes the strange A3 medic system into the game.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Beagle

[Smurf 12]

Hand-grenades in ArmA 3 are actually pretty deadly, I've thrown more than a few and most of the time it ends up with the enemy dead. Just look at this video where someone demonstrates how they work if for example thrown in the middle of a crowd. My guess is you had them thrown too far or they had some sort of an obstacle, blocking all or most shrapnel from reaching your target. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_jM6Pz3qqw

No sharpel simulation? Would cause much more lag than what the PhsyX\AI (?) there cause?

Unrelated:

Guess that's why training exist :D

[sqb-sma 66]

No sharpel simulation? Would cause much more lag than what the PhsyX\AI (?) there cause?

Unrelated:

Guess that's why training exist :D

Nope, that's why ACE did it in Arma 2. It seems like BIS has well and truly failed to further Arma as a milsim, leaving that to VBS. We'll have to wait for mods (again).

[Beagle 684]

Iron Front Liberation 1944 has shrapnel simulation (and armour penetration simulation) and all I can tell is that every singe grenade (or Cannon hit) really slows the whole game down.

[froggyluv 2136]

Grenades feel lethal here -at least when I throw them at enemies...not sure as I don't recall an AI throwing one at me. Mines on the other hand -stepped on one, grunted a bit , popped a med and got the FAK outta there.

[dmarkwick 261]

There's no difference between simulating hundreds of shrapnel paths & their collisions, and a simple random chance appropriately set up. Aside from the massive FPS gain, that is :)

[John Kozak 14]

No, actually, there is. Random chance won't take obstacles into account - and that gives the difference between dropping to cover and running away as a defending maneuver. FPS is still an issue though, yes.

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 4

[eXpouk 10]

They need to fix the shrapnel passing through objects. You should be able to throw a grenade into a building and not get hit outside whilst waiting to go in.

[dmarkwick 261]

No, actually, there is. Random chance won't take obstacles into account - and that gives the difference between dropping to cover and running away as a defending maneuver. FPS is still an issue though, yes.

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 4

Yes you're right. But, to save FPS, a random chance could be the initial step, followed by a raycast/lineintersect whatever to look for obstacles.

[John Kozak 14]

Well... That's a bad idea, because:

1.Number of effective shrapnel pieces will be dependent on the number of objects around

2.When there is a lot of objects in the radius, the amount of data to process is even more than that in case of "honest" simulation

3.The distribution of shrapnel will look strange - it will look like it's a self-guided machinegun, not a grenade :) Because the shrapnel will only fly towards hittable targets.

So, no, I'm voting for "honest" simulation with reduced number of pieces. ArmA 2 engine handled shotguns with ~20 pellets pretty well. I suppose 20-30 would not be a large performance hit.

P.S. I don't remember much problems with ACE2 either - setting aside the general slowness due to a lot of scripts executed each frame, fragmentation mines behaved really good.

[KingoftheSandbox 10]

@froggyluv

youre a lucky bastard or the AI just likes you:p, they use often grenades when i play and they are far more accuarate then in Arma 2 for example, which i love

[scrim 1]

Usully grenades do not tend to explode into your neck. exposureto a grenade in a 10m readius equals beeing shot by a 12 gauge shotgun at 24m with 2mm pellets. Every basic 2,4mm Protection google will stop that. and it is a know fact that casualties from grenades and IEDs are high but lethality is extremely low since the indroduction of standard STAGNAG IV level Body Armour all across the whole NATO. The penetration power of the shrapnel is rther low and the idead of a grenade is the same like a mine...to produce casualties and not necesarrly fatalities...you throw a grenade in an attack attempt to soften the defenders up and finish them off with rifles or smgs.

against modern armourd personall the lethal effectiveness of shrapnell is less than 5m and even for unprotected personell is less than 10m

Yeah, agreed, but what I'm talking about is the effect of the shrapnel on those parts of your body not covered by a protective equipment.

[dmarkwick 261]

Well... That's a bad idea, because:

1.Number of effective shrapnel pieces will be dependent on the number of objects around

No it won't: when the random indicator flags you as "ulnucky " and you've been hit somewhere, then the line intersect will be calculated, and only onbjects it intersects with need to be consuidered.

2.When there is a lot of objects in the radius, the amount of data to process is even more than that in case of "honest" simulation

No, for the reasons above.

3.The distribution of shrapnel will look strange - it will look like it's a self-guided machinegun, not a grenade :) Because the shrapnel will only fly towards hittable targets.

I can't see what you mean by this...

So, no, I'm voting for "honest" simulation with reduced number of pieces. ArmA 2 engine handled shotguns with ~20 pellets pretty well. I suppose 20-30 would not be a large performance hit.

Each to his own :) but unless you think it's possible that 20-30 people might be standing around in a close position, I can't see the value of it IMO.

P.S. I don't remember much problems with ACE2 either - setting aside the general slowness due to a lot of scripts executed each frame, fragmentation mines behaved really good.

You said it yourself - the slowdown caused by it. Authenticity is all well & good etc but you have to also be pragmatic.

[John Kozak 14]

No it won't: when the random indicator flags you as "ulnucky " and you've been hit somewhere, then the line intersect will be calculated, and only onbjects it intersects with need to be consuidered.

If you have probability 0.5 and 10 objects near grenade, you have 5 hits (5 effective pieces of shrapnel) on average.

If you have probability 0.5 and 100 objects near grenade, you have 50 hits (50 effective pieces of shrapnel) on average.

Sorry, but you didn't even understand what I'm talking about. Read again.

Edited August 16, 2013 by DarkWanderer

[becubed 24]

If you have probability 0.5 and 10 objects near grenade, you have 5 hits (5 effective pieces of shrapnel) on average.

If you have probability 0.5 and 100 objects near grenade, you have 50 hits (50 effective pieces of shrapnel) on average.

Sorry, but you didn't even understand what I'm talking about. Read again.

I think DMarwick understands, he just has a better idea of what a grenade produces. Modern grenades are designed to fragment evenly and into many pieces, hundreds to thousands, unlike in WW2 where fragmentation was unreliable and larger fragments produced. I can remember reading that some of them were dangerous to the thrower so the advice was throw and hit the deck.

Some examples of modern grenades from Janes '92 Infantry Weapons:

US M545 comes with three fillings 150x1g, 225x0.5g or 1300x0.12g.

Austrian HG84 5,000 pellets

Austrian HG85 3,500 pellets giving 8.1/m3 at 5m

Belgium M72 - 900

Obviously you cannot simulate these numbers.

Instead you would be better to look at the targets inside a radius of effect, and then adjust for line of sight, profile and stance.

Most offensive grenades seem to be listed as lethal at around 5m and casualty producing up to 10-15m.

Defensive grenades have slightly bigger pellets that travel further so the ranges are a bit longer.

[maturin 12]

Oh hai ppl.

Objects already protect from splash damage of explosives.

[Beagle 684]

Oh hai ppl.

Objects already protect from splash damage of explosives.

indeed, including vehicles and wrecks.