Laws of War DLC Cluster Munitions

[GBee2 68]

The other issue with giving any ordnance a chance of failure is that you then need new models for them on the ground.

 

Also, what happens when I drop a 500lb bomb onto a large building? It's kinetic energy alone should destroy or damage the building, but even if you ignore that for a moment. What happens to the unexploded bomb, does it sit on the roof or magically move adjacent to the building?

[reyhard 2082]

1 hour ago, Night515 said:

Cluster artillery shells could spawn UXOs.

They already do ;)

[DnA 5015]

18 hours ago, pttn40 said:

I am wondering though if it is planned to have other munitions, like bombs and artillery shells, have a chance of becoming UXOs? It looks like only the cluster sub munitions have UXO variants right now, and UXOs could pose a greater threat to heavier vehicles if bombs/artillery shells had a chance of becoming UXOs. Also, will it be possible to configure non cluster munitions to have a chance of becoming UXOs in the first place?

Strike_NOR makes some valid points on that actually (the cluster strikes will still always be highly destructive, there is no chance of a full malfunction). I'm afraid it's not currently planned to extend these cluster munition UXOs to broader weapon / gear malfunctioning. To me personally it would be an interesting aspect of warfare to explore, but I'd not expect it in Arma 3 vanilla during its lifetime to be honest. Certainly mods may have a few more options to try such things now, although from the engine point of view, the implementation is quite closely tied to the simulation of sub-munitions (not just any munitions).

[pttn40 15]

5 hours ago, DnA said:

Strike_NOR makes some valid points on that actually (the cluster strikes will still always be highly destructive, there is no chance of a full malfunction). I'm afraid it's not currently planned to extend these cluster munition UXOs to broader weapon / gear malfunctioning. To me personally it would be an interesting aspect of warfare to explore, but I'd not expect it in Arma 3 vanilla during its lifetime to be honest. Certainly mods may have a few more options to try such things now, although from the engine point of view, the implementation is quite closely tied to the simulation of sub-munitions (not just any munitions).

 

Thanks for the quick response. That is what I kind of expected, unfortunately, with UXOs being tried more to the sub-munitions simulation than the simulation of general munitions. Strike_NOR points also make sense outside of a millsim perspective.

 

I look forward to reading through the documentation once the wiki is updated, and will be browsing through the configs looking for ways to abuse…. I mean adapt the engine to spawn large UXOs ;) Thank you again for the response and keep up the good work!

[x3kj 1247]

I think the talk about "uxo feature" seems a bit confusing. It's not a base feature, it's just something that was made possible by the actual feature: added possbility to spawn different projectile types randomly for submunition ammo, and extended submunition support for more projectile simulation types. The cluster spawns a random type of projectile (with different chance). So instead of spawning 100% of exploding projectiles, it spawns 3% as mine or similar. To have large uxo, you either have to convert all ordonance to cluster ammo (with spawn amount 1) - which just asks for trouble if you ask me, or replace the projectiles mid flight via a fired Eventhandler. Fired EH should be the better way for indirect fire and free-fall ordonance. The later method is possible since quite a while.

If everything had uxo i would start to worry about performance for longer missions...

Spoiler

_______

talking about cluster ammo,  i've seen the new triggerSpeedCoef in the config. Is it possible to override the speed with an absolute value?  A double functionality, just like initspeed for cfgmagazine, would be really usefull.  That way even projectile forming high explosive projectiles could be created (HEAT and similar) - provided the triggerDistance at small values is reliable, OR if the triggerWhenDestroyed is compatible with submunition and keeps the orientation of the projectile intact.

 

Another thing where submunition would be really usefull would be for mixed-belt Ammunition on aircraft and helicopter autocannons. If the triggerTime would work with submunition (didnt test), one could set it to 0 and mix AP and HE in one belt. Granted the distribution would be random, but thats still better than trying to butcher the projectile hit values to simulate both at once (which never works). If the spawnmode for submunition could be switched between random (standard) and deterministic that would be even better - meaning that with 80% A and 20% B,  four shots will be A and the next always be B. But i guess thats pretty tricky because information between single submunition parent projectiles would have to be transferred.

[jwllorens 43]

It looks like the mine dispenser is based on the M7 Spider networked mine in the US arsenal.  However, it really doesn't work like it would in real life.  A gadget as sophisticated as this, or at least as it looks in-game, shouldn't disperse mines like that.  In real life, the M7 spider, which looks VERY similar, detects enemies via tripwire and a man-in-the-loop can then tell the spider to launch an air bursting grenade in the direction of the victim.  It specifically works this way so as to AVOID the limitations and dangers of traditional landmines, however the one in the game is the opposite.  While it looks new-age and advanced, it is the most dangerous and controversial weapon in the game other than the cluster bombs because it scatters so many indiscriminate mines, and would be even more dangerous to noncombatants years after the war than a single well placed older generation bounding mine.  

 

For the mine dispenser, it would be very cool to see it work more similarly to how it does in real life.  The dispenser would then instead be a UAV controlled by the UAV terminal.  Unlike most UAVs though, it would not have a functional camera, and instead, opening the AV camera while not directly controlling the dispenser would bring up a sort of "radar" centered on the dispenser that would highlight any soldier or vehicle that crosses into its lethal arc as a blinking red dot.  Firing the dispenser would be accomplished through an action in the action menu, which would lob a grenade in the direction of a random vehicle or man within its lethal radius (with a high arc) that would airburst.  Alternatively, you could set the dispenser to be autonomous and then it would automatically fire on ANY man or soldier that walks into its lethal arc after a short delay, because in autonomous mode it becomes indiscriminate like a normal landmine, and the player would then have to deal with the consequences of that choice to use it in this mode.  

 

The dispenser would then provide a tactical area denial option that is unique from other mines in the game in that it is not a hazard to civilians if used correctly, but requiring a man in the loop. 

 

That would be a lot of work though.  Another alternative is to simply put a self destruct timer on the mines it creates, having them detonate automatically X minutes after they hit the ground and arm themselves.  15 minutes should be fine.  This would also be nice for use of the dispenser in multiplayer PvP games, from a performance perspective.

[heavygunner 179]

They probably are aware of the real life version and decided for gameplay reasons to change it. Even if they would decide against it now, it would be far too late to change it. BIS especially implemented them so you have to deal with UXO and left over mines.

[jwllorens 43]

 

All that aside, I would have liked to have seen the mine dispenser work as the flip slide of the UXO/mine coin, as a strategic area denial option that requires more work and direct player interaction to use, but in the theme of the DLC provides an option that is much less indiscriminate and safer for noncombatants than traditional landmines that are lamented over by the main characters in the story (for good reason).  Plus, I really want some airburst functionality in this game.  There are already weapons in the game that are weak representations of their real-life counterparts due to the lack of airburst functionality, like the XM307 static grenade launcher that is in the game.  

Edited August 20, 2017 by R0adki11
off topic elements

[R0adki11 3945]

Thread cleaned up off topic posts removed/edited.

[AegisWolf 16]

Right now, the portrayed submunitions for the NATO and AAF cluster muntions are HEAT warheads, with the NATO variant being, in real life, a dual-purpose warhead, acting as a HEAT warhead on impact with a hard surface, and a fragmentary warhead on impact with a soft(er) surface. After a decent amount of testing, I cannot discern any significant damage dealt to a reasonably armored target from any of the cluster munitions. The only disablings I have seen have been on wheeled vehicles, an expected outcome for fragmentary weapons. Were the decision mine, I would either changing the NATO and AAF damage models to reflect this, or changing the models and textures of the NATO and AAF submunitions to match their in-game effects. Arguably, you could simply use the CSAT submunition model for the NATO and AAF submunitions, as the ShOAB-0.5 submunitions are very close to the American BLU-36 deployed in the CBU-24 bomb. Mention of tactics might be made in-game: Anti-personnel and -materiel cluster munitions such as this are much more effective than unitary munitions against soft targets in cover due to the heightened probability of a submunition landing in said cover.

 

If this wasn't at the end of the development of this weapon system in the game, I'd have suggested you either go for dual-purpose submunitions across the board, or attempt to model the much more interesting sensor-fused submunitions such as the CBU-97 and RBK-500-SPBE-D for NATO and CSAT, leaving AAF with dual-purpose clusters. Anti-armor munitions such as this are excellent against grouped armor units, and are an important counter to massed armor pushes.

[Jnr4817 215]

Will there be any way to adjust how many UXO's will appear after a cluster bomb is dropped. For example, if I wanted all of the clusters to explode leaving no UXO's is that possible or if I wanted the exact opposite and wanted no clusters to explode and have all UXO's after a bomb drop?

 

If possible I'd like to be able to adjust the probability of UXO's from cluster munitions in the editor with the weapons load out, say a value of 0.0-1.0 or 1-10. This would give the mission maker a lot of freedom to adapt the new DLC an use the IDAP effectively or make for a very stressful mission once cluster bombs have been dropped in an area.

 

Thanks

[x3kj 1247]

On 22.8.2017 at 10:57 PM, AegisWolf said:

If this wasn't at the end of the development of this weapon system in the game, I'd have suggested you either go for dual-purpose submunitions across the board, or attempt to model the much more interesting sensor-fused submunitions such as the CBU-97 and RBK-500-SPBE-D for NATO and CSAT, leaving AAF with dual-purpose clusters. Anti-armor munitions such as this are excellent against grouped armor units, and are an important counter to massed armor pushes.

Valid points, however there is a problem -  there is no "anti armor" weapon functionality in arma. It just causes more damage, which can be very problematic (e.g. a single hit or very few hits with one "anti-vehicle" mine could possibly bring down an entire building due to these limitations). Here's hoping for Tank DLC to fix that by introducing a shaped charge feature (possibly even via the submunition route of converting a flying explosive projectile on impact into a much faster one with penetration capability ).

[AegisWolf 16]

16 minutes ago, x3kj said:

Valid points, however there is a problem -  there is no "anti armor" weapon functionality in arma. It just causes more damage, which can be very problematic (e.g. a single hit or very few hits with one "anti-vehicle" mine could possibly bring down an entire building due to these limitations). Here's hoping for Tank DLC to fix that by introducing a shaped charge feature (possibly even via the submunition route of converting a flying explosive projectile on impact into a much faster one with penetration capability ).

Bear in mind, though, there's already a non-aerial version of the sensor-fused shaped-charge weapon systems in-game, the M6 SLAM mine. They would even have similar triggering conditions, with the possible exception that the airborne version would detonate with contact with the ground, if it hasn't found any targets.

[x3kj 1247]

triggering mechanic is not related to the damage mechanic (apart from obviously triggering it...)

[AegisWolf 16]

3 hours ago, x3kj said:

triggering mechanic is not related to the damage mechanic (apart from obviously triggering it...)

My point with the trigger was how widespread such destruction, as you describe, would be. Even if I got one of my wishes, and we got dual-purpose submunitions, it might be possible for BI to rig it so that the warheads have a different damage profile (i.e. more damage over a smaller area) if they actually strike a tank, to somewhat mimic reality. Maybe. Worst case scenario, they give it a steeper damage curve than a typical HE warhead, with the high damage area cranked up enough to damage a tank through the top armor. In either case, it wouldn't do significantly more damage than it deserves to, to a town and the terrain around it.

 

This is all somewhat moot, cause data-lock. Copying the CSAT submunition models over to the NATO and AAF submunitions would still probably be the easiest option, while bestowing some realism.

 

Also, has anyone checked the submunition count and spread vs. reality? Anybody know how high HEAT cluster munition are generally set to disperse to try and direct-hit armor targets, versus those trying to hit personnel and materiel with fragmentation?

[gippo 38]

Might be a good time to look at this issue: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123463
Any projectile which spawns additional projectiles does not pass the instigator to these submunition projectiles.
Affects cluster shells and now mine dispenser as well.

[x3kj 1247]

i think the whole instigator thing requires a revisit. For example for any damage you script, you can't influence the instigator in any easy way. And as such any script relying on kill eventhandlers to do something with the "killer" will not receive correct input.

[NutzMcKracken 17]

Thank you for finally adding this to the the game is all I can say (from working on one of the mods that brought CBU's to A2)!!

 

@gippo

On the "instigator" bit, don't set high expectations on this, as this was widely discussed dating back to early A1 & A2 days of CBU's, scripted artillery, etc. It was somewhat of a moot point in that CBU's and other cluster munitions were "OP" (Over Powered) and perhaps needed some limitation where by not encouraging players to use this as a "kill count exploiter" and more of a "Support" feature. It's a nice to have feature definitely, but could the data point be linked properly with consistency? That's my concern as I've not seen it happen in multiplayer in the past.

 

@AegisWolf

As far as the different munitions, someone said it right...it's a matter of hit points sadly, but that's really with most games to be honest (sorry if this somewhat of a spoiler for some). 

On the part about dispensor vectoring, in my experience with researching, testing, and developing CBU's for A2, I found that at times you could drop low and condense the amount of munitions released in a confined area, causing a great more deal of damage to higher armored targets due to "combined effects" from the concentrated splash damage of other bomblets. I tried modifying the script I started with by which it would control the altitude which they would disperse to avoid this. I even adjusted where the bomb or dispenser (as it's properly termed) would not "pop" or dispense unless the pilot was above a certain altitude. 

 

The way it happens in reality with modern CBU's. In reality, especially with WCMD* (and shortly before with advanced avionics) most bombs were dropped at high altitude (due to SAM danger) and "slightly" guided to target. It was adjustable by the pilot at what altitude the dispenser would open and "scatter" the munition. In reality the Tail fins spun the dispenser, making to spread more effectively (after all you had 200+ bomblets to scatter). I wanted to incorporate a function where the pilot could adjust by altitude the bomb would dispense, sadly I didn't get this far.

 

Back to munitions and reality, with CEM (Combined Effect munitions, namely the CBU-87/CBU-103 WCMD) the munitions were intended NOT for heavily armored targets, mostly soft to medium. Their original intention was to disrupt airfields and cause great damage over a widespread area and partially destroy runways. It was later found to have other uses towards convoys, etc. 

 

*(Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser, pronounced "Wic-Med", and mostly a tailfin kit attached to a SUU-65 carrier, and then designated a SUU-66)

 

 

As far as CBU-105 WCMD's which use skeets similar to SADARM artillery, these need an extremely high altitude of dispensing or "popping" in order for the whole system to have enough altitude to disperse the BLU-108, and then fire the penetrator skeet to scan. Very very different systems between releasing BLU-108's and BLU-97's (CEM).

 

On to a different subject, more for the developers ( @DnA ) to consider if they can, even this late in the "skunk works".

 

Consider since you have added one of the carriers or submunition dispensers with APERS, look at FASCAM or specifically GATOR which used AT mines mixed with AP mines. This if anything could add an additional "bomb" (dispenser) to the inventory. I doubt it would take much to "rework"? Since you have a system that disperses and arms APERS on the ground, why not have a separate bombs that includes both APERS and SLAM?

 

Another idea on the concept, perhaps a smart detonation system could be integrated so that friendly forces can detonate them for a safe path through? This would seem to correlate with ArmA 3's "future" presence with advanced military functions.

 

In researching the GATOR system they had plans to incorporate a method using an encrypted radio signal that would set off a field of them to allow allied forces through rather than a timed detonation which the system currently employs. After all, landmines by method are "area denial" systems, why not have a "gate"? Further development on the project was scrapped with US military budget cuts after the cold war ended.

 

Like the real project, life got in the way and I scrapped my work on the CBU's and GATOR system I wanted to include for A2, so I'm very glad to see this as an addition. Many thanks for both the cool factor in ArmA and the awareness side of Law's of War.

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

UXO deactivate/defuse range is too big, looks like its set at the default 15m

[Jnr4817 215]

I am having trouble finding new "bomb run" function for the CAS module. How is this supposed to work after I have link all the support requester to the player and the CAS module to the support requester. I have tried the virtual and the live version. It appears nothing has change all the usual types of CAS plane support is there except bomb runs. What does bomb run mean actually mean. Is it multiple munitions are dropped at the same time or the typical one munition dropped. Does guided or unguided matter?

 

Thanks

 

Added: The CAS module now supports bomb runs (including cluster bombs)

[snoops_213 74]

Is there a way to add visual fx to the point when sub ammo is created from the parent ammo? Like a small explosion or puff of smoke 

[DnA 5015]

On 9/25/2017 at 3:52 PM, snoops_213 said:

Is there a way to add visual fx to the point when sub ammo is created from the parent ammo? Like a small explosion or puff of smoke 

Sadly not in a clean engine way; this was a limitation we'd also have liked to addressed, but we didn't find resources available.

[reyhard 2082]

https://imgur.com/a/D8MGU

Soon on devbranch ;)

[Strike_NOR 898]

2 minutes ago, reyhard said:

https://imgur.com/a/D8MGU

Soon on devbranch ;)

 

While this gif is dope reyhard, I must ask for verification :P

 

It's the black smoke puff that's new right? I can't remember that occuring before! Looks great!

 

Any potential for adding cluster bomb "casing" debris with this new feature?

 

 

Thanks for polishing the details :)

[reyhard 2082]

13 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

 

While this gif is dope reyhard, I must ask for verification :P

 

It's the black smoke puff that's new right? I can't remember that occuring before! Looks great!

 

Any potential for adding cluster bomb "casing" debris with this new feature?

 

 

Thanks for polishing the details :)

Yes, I've added smoke puff effect when submunition is released that @snoops_213 asked for. It was more side effect of me working on something else so I wouldn't expect any extra mesh for it in nearby future ;)