Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements

[scavenjer 112]

1 hour ago, oukej said:

It can...although we've been thinking about some simplifications because the Titan and also Scalpel and DAGR have been too much of all-in-one missiles. (e.g. manual mode removal or/and retaining just one type of seeker)

Many players may be used and enjoy exactly that specific use which we'd remove. It would be quite a risky, unpopular move to make. On the other hand, we're introducing new features (top-down) so now is probably the last option to think about "more drastic changes" (if ever)

I can personally attest to how often and how exactly various missiles are used (pvp).

• Titan AT is used rarely if ever, and most people try to lock on with it, which quite often fails, experienced players use the wireguided function, though it's much less used than previously (one year ago or so).
• DAGRs are used wireguided by experienced players and rarely if ever used in IR lock mode, laser guided I personally haven't even seen.
• Scalpels are used more locked than both other missiles, mostly in IR mode, though, again experienced players use mostly wireguiding... (There's some bugs with scalpels that I will post later today, these are definitely exploits...)

Overall, I would say that scalpels are by far the most popular and effective as anti-tank.

That's mostly due to the platform it's used on (kajman).

Kajman is very tanky for a helicopter and very maneuverable for such a big helicopter, coupled with 8 insta-kill missiles that come out of nowhere for tanks it's very popular with experienced players.

Blackfoot suffers from being very flimsy a poor flight model (flying brick) and the need for multiple DAGR hits on MBTs (5-6).

 

Overall the massive popularity of the kajman quite often dictates pvp combat and makes armour nearly pointless.

There's several bugs associated with the kajman such as: beyond 2km the IR signature is incredibly hard to spot regardless of view range (seriously it's nearly invisible), and there's also a bug that allows a single person to fly the kajman from pilot seat and select targets using scalpels (manual fire) and fire guided scalpels even though no lock was achieved, these missiles also often seem to ignore smoke.

 

Edit: I forgot to mention there's an "exploit" (not really sure if you can call this an exploit) with all guided missiles, if a target is beyond max view range, let's say 4KM, you can still "select" that target using radar (attack helis) which will give you a target box, you won't be able to lock on as this is past visual range, however you can still use this box as an indicator of where the target is, then using wireguiding you can effectively engage and kill the target beyond visual range without needing lock on.

[scavenjer 112]

IMHO, you can compromise with disabling IR lock on scalpels and instead rely purely on laser guidance (and perhaps radar?) while giving the Kajman gunner a laser designator it can use to designate for other kajmans.
Same goes for the Blackfoot.
Titans I'm not too sure as both IR lock and laser lock make sense in the way it's used and we don't want to leave infantry without a way to deal with armour, (tanks can turn off engine thus reducing thermal signature).

[Strike_NOR 898]

1 hour ago, dragon01 said:

Or, you could add multiple variants or each missile, with different seekers

 

This right here!!

 

Force players to choose between SACLOS, IR-seeking, Radar- or Laserguided variants. Because if every player is opting for the same omni-weapon, then what's the point of the rest of the weapons/vehicles (Kajman FTW)? 

 

Besides. Using saclos or laser guidance will force helis to use a gunner to aim it. Unless LOAL is introduced and a FAC can lase it for you. Either situation requires teamwork to function.

 

IR missiles can only lock on active vehicles and radar can have better locking range, but enemy has a higher chance of detecting you (RWR).

[ski2060 167]

Multiple missile variants/sensors FTW!  Making players choose what type of missile or mix of missiles to bring is a good thing in my book!

[petek 62]

Must admit I personally use the titan with IR lock and manually guided - would miss it if changed (as above - engine cold still want to hit armor)

Liking the changes - really looking forward to them expanding/refining

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Speaking from experience though. People complain a lot if you add multiple sensor/warhead variants of the same missile and don't make their different purpose immediately accessible.

Seems a lot of people are reluctant to e.g google the difference between an AGM-114L and AGM-114K or AGM-65E and AGM-65D.

 

As @scavenjer pointed out, you can't really rely on all players to understand why something does or does not lock, simply from using it. They will tend to use any alternative method that they have had (limited) success with on a similar weapon, and assume that's the correct function of the other weapon. In ignorance of other methods of employment that might yield better success in a scenario, and subsequently restrict their use of the weapon.

 

The more variety and complexity you have, the more "training" resources you need to provide.

[scavenjer 112]

6 minutes ago, da12thMonkey said:

Speaking from experience though. People complain a lot if you add multiple sensor/warhead variants of the same missile and don't make their different purpose immediately accessible.

Seems a lot of people are reluctant to e.g google the difference between an AGM-114L and AGM-114K or AGM-65E and AGM-65D.

 

As @scavenjer pointed out, you can't really rely on all players to understand why something does or does not lock, simply from using it. They will tend to use any alternative method that they have had (limited) success with on a similar weapon, and assume that's the correct function of the other weapon. In ignorance of other methods of employment that might yield better success in a scenario.

 

The more variety and complexity you have, the more "training" resources you need to provide.

I think something like a tooltip might be useful, as I think that things shouldn't be "easy" but rather take experience and practice/thinking.
Mostly prefer for tools such as AT to be used in an intelligent manner if not, they shouldn't be very effective.

[Strike_NOR 898]

@da12thMonkey and @scavenjer I can totally see what you mean, and I get where you're coming from. It's in fact a very good point.

 

I guess the way I would try to introduce this is by slamming it together with Tanks DLC as weapon guidance overhaul (as already hinted in SITREP) and announcing changes there.

Additionally, the names would not be suffixed by A,B,C,D, but rather "Scalpel IR" "Scalpel Laser", "Scalpel Radar".

 

The naming could be standard for all weapons with different seekers, across all factions for easy recognition.

 

Lastly, a VR training mission that quickly demonstrates/teaches each guidance type, and how they behave. Could simply be a single heli, with one of each missile loaded, and one target for each missile type to fire on.

 

 

But.... will it break backward compatibility? Is it necessary? Are current missiles OP? Does this achieve balance? Are tanks sitting ducks even with new missile seekers?

 

Many questions should be answered before even considering the steps I suggested above. 

 

I am personally very fond of realism and realistic options. Yet again none of my friends RL seem to understand why I play ArmA, when I can play CSGO or World of Tanks..... ;)

[scavenjer 112]

1 minute ago, Strike_NOR said:

@da12thMonkey and @scavenjer I can totally see what you mean, and I get where you're coming from. It's in fact a very good point.

 

I guess the way I would try to introduce this is by slamming it together with Tanks DLC as weapon guidance overhaul (as already hinted in SITREP) and announcing changes there.

Additionally, the names would not be suffixed by A,B,C,D, but rather "Scalpel IR" "Scalpel Laser", "Scalpel Radar".

 

The naming could be standard for all weapons with different seekers, across all factions for easy recognition.

 

Lastly, a VR training mission that quickly demonstrates/teaches each guidance type, and how they behave. Could simply be a single heli, with one of each missile loaded, and one target for each missile type to fire on.

 

 

But.... will it break backward compatibility? Is it necessary? Are current missiles OP? Does this achieve balance? Are tanks sitting ducks even with new missile seekers?

 

Many questions should be answered before even considering the steps I suggested above. 

 

I am personally very fond of realism and realistic options. Yet again none of my friends RL seem to understand why I play ArmA, when I can play CSGO or World of Tanks..... ;)

Yeah, that's pretty much what we need, currently tanks are sitting ducks in PvP servers like KoTH were the majority of the active vehicles will be attack helicopters and jets, AA does exist but is mostly insufficient.

On servers where jets are disabled, kajman reigns supreme and can quite easily kill 8 tanks with 8 scalpels, not taking into account bugs (GBU bug, kajman manual fire bug, both will probably be fixed with tanks DLC).
 

Ofcourse, we need to keep in mind that the kajman is a tank hunter, but even considering it's role, tanks really stand no chance of surviving within 8km of a decent kajman crew.

 

Titans used to be extremely effective at taking out tanks but that was taken down a notch (bit too much), unfortunately I feel like the majority of the people using these weapons simply don't know how to use them most effectively which leads to people complaining about them.

AT weapons should be good in their role, but tanks should still stand a chance, I'm mostly talking about giving tanks some form of RWR/MWR and maybe APS (APS is already visually modelled).

[SuicideKing 233]

5 hours ago, oukej said:

Many players may be used and enjoy exactly that specific use which we'd remove. It would be quite a risky, unpopular move to make.

Would it not... just be easier to split them into two or three sub-types? Say Scalpel, Scalpel_SACLOS, Scalpel_IR_Laser, Scalpel_IR, Scalpel_Laser, and so on? That way you keep the old behaviour (i.e. nothing breaks, no unpopular move made) while mission designers have the option of using just one of them, according to their needs. This also shifts the balancing problem in PvP from your heads to the KotH/whatever else's devs' heads.

 

That said, I will admit to not having done any config modding myself, so I don't know how much of a hassle it will be to implement or maintain any of this! :P

 

But yeah, if not for A3 then for whatever comes next, it would be nice to have "dynamic sensors" of some sort (that can be edited mission-side) for vehicles and missiles, or lots of variants of missiles. I guess this is a topic for another day though. *Waits patiently for Arma 4 Alpha announcement* 

 

p.s. I see dragon01 made the same point too.

 

5 hours ago, oukej said:

(e.g. manual mode removal or/and retaining just one type of seeker)

edit: although i would say, if at absolutely comes to this then i'd fully support removing the seeker of the titan and keeping the manual mode :P

 

For the Scalpel, probably drop laser, for the DAGR, could remove manual mode. The Macer desperately needs a laser seeker though, given the use case of the pilot coordinating with a JTAC. not to mention an anti-radiation seeker

[SuicideKing 233]

1 hour ago, da12thMonkey said:

The more variety and complexity you have, the more "training" resources you need to provide.

I think the difference lies in needing to google it at all. For example, in vanilla A3's context, you could call the weapon:

• Scalpel
• Scalpel (SACLOS) or Scalpel (wireguided) or Scalpel (manual)
• Scalpel (IR)
• Scalpel (Laser guided)

... and so on. Since this name appears in the mouse-over text in the inventory (in case of Titan/PCML), and in the upper right corner (fire mode display), the player will know what that is without having to refer to an external source. Beyond that there's not much you can do, heck 5 years after A3 Alpha people still don't know that the PCML can lock on... i think most of the need for "retraining" was introduced with sensors anyway, so i think this distinction could only help if anything. There is of course an in-game manual too.

 

Speaking of which, maybe this https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Category:Arma_3:_Field_Manual should be made into a PDF document or something...

 

p.s. damn it Strike_NOR already wrote all this. I should really read the full thread first... 
EDIT: with the difference being, I'd say keep the current missile and add new types, to avoid breaking backwards compatibility.

 

39 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

On servers where jets are disabled, kajman reigns supreme and can quite easily kill 8 tanks with 8 scalpels, not taking into account bugs

I have a feeling that beyond a point it's not BI's problem if the server admins/mission designers can't be bothered to balance things properly...because then even with multiple varieties of missiles, people will complain about balance etc. if these servers don't tweak things accordingly. Dynamic loadouts have existed for a year after all, they should probably be tweaking the Kajman's loadout.

[dragon01 902]

1 hour ago, SuicideKing said:

The Macer desperately needs a laser seeker though, given the use case of the pilot coordinating with a JTAC. not to mention an anti-radiation seeker

You already have LGBs for that purpose. Or Scalpels, which can be loaded onto any jet that can carry the Macer, and in greater quantity. In practice, their effectiveness is similar.

[Strike_NOR 898]

When I'm reading through all of our debating back and forth, I realize these things are better off in the "Sensors" thread, seeing that we have shifted the discussion towards sensors, rather than the new improvements (flight profiles/weapon improvements).

 

I will post seeker-related stuff there from now on.

 

In terms of the current implementation of flight profiles, and possibly shaped charge simulation, there are some relevant points to be made:

 

• New fire modes and warheads (top attack/dir) should be available for certain airborne missiles aswell to better distinguish their purposes.
• There should be some really clear guidelines as to which firemode/warhead is optimal for each situation.

And to BIS, regarding risks of implementing advanced features this late in the game:

 

I read a book once on game-theory while I was contemplating designing a strategic board-game (plans are on hold for now). According to the author, the reason we love games is largely due to our brains being wired to reward "making sense" of stuff. It has to puzzle together bits of information, to understand a mechanic/system and be able to master it. During this process, the mind rewards us for learning new things. It feels good to struggle with something for a little bit, and then overcome the challenge and master it. However though, once you are done - it becomes a sort of "muscle memory" and you do it on autopilot. 

Just imagine the following: You are learning to drive. Each trip with your mom or dad is exhilarating, as you focus intensely on traffic, shifting, looking in mirrors, and it feels fantastic to get your drivers license in the end! However, a few years later - driving is a chore. It no longer challenges you, and you stop enjoying the act of driving itself.

 

We can all relate in games. If you play some competitive match, and you are "owning" the other team, it becomes really boring and your brain makes up "minigames" to keep things interesting. "Hmmm, this is too easy. Let's try winning by just using melee attacks instead!". And so you see, you fight boredom. I dare argue, that one of the things that make simulators and games like ArmA so fun, is that they are hard to master. ArmA and many simulators are brutally unforgiving when the action starts. One mistake and you are dead. Game over. Sometimes, the first bullet fired in a scenario, can be the one that zips through your head. There are no shields, indicators or tips to help you locate the shooter or cause of death. I believe that since the challenge is not only to get headshots or score the most points, but actually survive each and every encounter, it makes it thus more rewarding to succeed!

 

TL;DR

 

Bringing new mechanics into the game, also means there new stuff to learn. The mind can start training itself on new armor mechanics, new warheads, new flight profiles etc and master the role of Anti-Tank infantry. There's something nice about specializing, just as you would when piloting a Heli. I know Dslyexci is a very talented pilot, because choppers are hard and unforgiving to fly in ArmA 3 compared to AAA games like battlefield. It requires hours of practice to get that good. But you don't need hours to learn the basics.

So when considering adding new more complex mechanics, also remember that learning and exploring new things introduces challenges to the brain and creates good feelings and satisfaction when mastering them.

 

Punchline:

It also makes killing that tank SO much more satisfying, knowing that it actually is difficult, rather than a "one click insta-kill". It makes nailing that heli-insertion feel so badass, because it requires skill to do so. It makes sniping that officer at a long distance so epic, because the bullet dropped so far. It makes ArmA stand out from the other "killstreak frenzy games" or action-movie Michael Bay constant action stuff.

 

So I say yes to new fire modes, yes to new warhead types (bye to multipurpose omni-kill stuff) and yes to new sensor types.

 

Peace, out!

[x3kj 1247]

1 hour ago, Strike_NOR said:

Bringing new mechanics into the game, also means there new stuff to learn. The mind can start training itself on new armor mechanics, new warheads, new flight profiles etc and master the role of Anti-Tank infantry.

[...]

It also makes killing that tank SO much more satisfying, knowing that it actually is difficult, rather than a "one click insta-kill". [...]

There is no complex mechanic in clicking a button to choose an attack mode, automatically lock, click fire. So i don't see the "SO much more satisfying" potential there. There is no different operating skill involved. There is only knowledge of which AT uses which guidance mode and which sensors. The only exception from this is SACLOS and MCLOS (which is not implemented).

 

On the other hand i consider it easy to aquire and apply that knowledge (also, descriptive names for ammo - Scalpel IR, Scalpel Laser, or whatever - will make it obvious which does which.) - provided there is a good ressource, such as a little tutorial or showcase - which i am pretty sure is required with some new Tank DLC features anyway.

[Strike_NOR 898]

57 minutes ago, x3kj said:

There is no complex mechanic in clicking a button to choose an attack mode, automatically lock, click fire. So i don't see the "SO much more satisfying"

 

Hence new armor mechanics, new warheads and sensor types.

 

To put it differently. Try using the AT-3 Malyutka in RHS (MCLOS) and hit something with that. It's much more challenging, not overpowered and very rewarding to master. That said, MCLOS is basically outdated, but SACLOS and other types of predicted lead missile systems (NLAW) are still "harder" to use than Fire and forget Javelins.

 

As for warheads. The RPG-7 system that Syndikat uses has a wide range of warheads IRL. I wouldn't say that the RHS RPG-7 is easy to master, which makes it more fun to use imho.

[snoops_213 75]

20 hours ago, oukej said:

It can...although we've been thinking about some simplifications because the Titan and also Scalpel and DAGR have been too much of all-in-one missiles. (e.g. manual mode removal or/and retaining just one type of seeker)

Many players may be used and enjoy exactly that specific use which we'd remove. It would be quite a risky, unpopular move to make. On the other hand, we're introducing new features (top-down) so now is probably the last option to think about "more drastic changes" (if ever)

Do it! If this is the last real chance please take it. With the Sensor Update and now missile, bombs and weapons update don't hold back. People will adapt and change to suit. Some of the missiles/rockets need to be altered so weapon choice plays a bigger factor. 

 

Now several questions

• Does this mean we can have different flight profiles for bombs? ie glide bombs or even make different cluster munition spreads? 
• Can we make our own flight profiles? If so would a missile flying up to a certain height before leaning towards its target be possible? 
• Are weapon improvements limited to Launchers? 
• This may belong in sensor thread but AI reaction to missiles fired at it needs to be looked at. It relies on a EH which is not affected by distance or angles . AI will fire off smoke instantly in the direction the turret is facing and seems to affect the missile not matter where the missile is coming from or distance to target. With no APS planned AI should suffer the same as players and only deploy smoke when one of the AI see a launch or missile in flight.

but good job so far

[da12thMonkey 1943]

51 minutes ago, snoops_213 said:

Does this mean we can have different flight profiles for bombs? ie glide bombs or even make different cluster munition spreads? 

Can already kind of make glide bombs by messing around with coefGravity and airFriction parameters (and the geometry LOD of the model to some extent) so they stay airborne for longer in ballistic flight.

 

Cluster munitions again, already have several options to change their spread: submunitionConeAngle ultimately defines the spread distance: Obviously, depending on the height of the munition above the ground when submunitions are released. This is either a set proximity value with triggerDistance, or dependant on release height if a triggerTime is in place to dispense the munitions a set time after the weapon is released from the launch platform.

.And submunitionConeType changes the pattern of spread. Available options for this are random, randomCenter, poissonDisc, poissonDiscCenter, custom (defining position of each munition explicitly with {X,Y} coords in the release plane).

There's also a submunitionDirectionType parameter. At the moment the PCML uses the value "SubmunitionTargetDirection"; for its overfly penetrator. Not sure what the other options are yet.

 

51 minutes ago, snoops_213 said:

Can we make our own flight profiles? If so would a missile flying up to a certain height before leaning towards its target be possible? 

Currently there are parameters ascendHeight which defines the altitude that the missile will climb to (I think it's ASL/ATL altitude rather than relative climbing distance from the launch altitude on aircraft, but I'm not certain). ascendAngle that defines the steepness of the climb (so do some trig to work out how far away the missile will be from the launcher when it reaches ascendHeight). And finally descendDistance which appears to be the distance from the target, where the missile will start to dive back down (so the dive angle depends on the height the missile is currently at when it reaches descendDistance - shorter descendDistance generally seems to make for steeper dives). There is also a minDistance parameter, whereby a missile will cancel the lofting flight profile and fly directly if the launch platform is closer to the targets than minDistance.

[oukej 2910]

Since the SACLOS gets mentioned more often - there was a little Discord configCreep competition won by @da12thMonkey. Let's see who else finds it here first ;)

On 2/7/2018 at 12:58 PM, da12thMonkey said:

Glances at @oukej, sets #REDACTED# = 1;

 

[scavenjer 112]

Right, I can confirm that the Kajman manual fire scalpel bug is fixed on dev branch (1.81.144240) and so is the GBU bug, .

With that out of the way and what seems to be a general consensus towards having more specialised missiles instead of the omni-purpose ones, I think it's safe to say that you don't have to worry much about changing some things .

[snoops_213 75]

21 minutes ago, da12thMonkey said:

Can already kind of make glide bombs by messing around with coefGravity and airFriction parameters (and the geometry LOD of the model to some extent) so they stay airborne for longer in ballistic flight.

 

Cluster munitions again, already have several options to change their spread: submunitionConeAngle ultimately defines the spread distance: Obviously, depending on the height of the munition above the ground when submunitions are released. This is either a set proximity value with triggerDistance, or dependant on release height if a triggerTime is in place to dispense the munitions a set time after the weapon is released from the launch platform.

.And submunitionConeType changes the pattern of spread. Available options for this are random, randomCenter, poissonDisc, poissonDiscCenter, custom (defining position of each munition explicitly with {X,Y} coords in the release plane).

There's also a submunitionDirectionType parameter. At the moment the PCML uses the value "SubmunitionTargetDirection"; for its overfly penetrator. Not sure what the other options are yet.

 

Yes i know of these, what i want to know is if i can set these parameters in the individual flight profiles so we can have different dispersion areas with the one cluster munition or different glide profiles. 

 

50 minutes ago, da12thMonkey said:

 

Currently there are parameters ascendHeight which defines the altitude that the missile will climb to (I think it's ASL/ATL altitude rather than relative climbing distance from the launch altitude on aircraft, but I'm not certain). ascendAngle that defines the steepness of the climb (so do some trig to work out how far away the missile will be from the launcher when it reaches ascendHeight). And finally descendDistance which appears to be the distance from the target, where the missile will start to dive back down (so the dive angle depends on the height the missile is currently at when it reaches descendDistance - shorter descendDistance generally seems to make for steeper dives). There is also a minDistance parameter, whereby a missile will cancel the lofting flight profile and fly directly if the launch platform is closer to the targets than minDistance.

Thanks may go try somethings out later. 

[petek 62]

Hi - Got to be honest - not happy about "Tweaked: Titan laser guidance has been removed" - if this means we can no longer "steer" the missile? How would one use an anti tank missile against a "cold target"?  Also Anti Personnel missiles are presumably not used against "hot" targets (unless body heat counts?)

 

I've done some limited testing and seems can still "steer" the missile...... am I mis-understanding something? (don't get me wrong - I want "steering" to stay!!;-))

 

cheers

[SuicideKing 233]

Good to see the PCML get buffed. My initial feedback:

• Direct attack mode seems a bit too potent now :P
• It's killing most IFVs except the "Cat" APCs in 1 shot.
• Top attack mode seems to do far less damage
• sometimes the rocket disappears in top attack mode

I tested this out on a bunch of vehicles. First rocket is almost always in DIR mode, second is usually in TOP mode.

 

 

Going by SAAB's documentation, top attack should be more effective against armoured targets, however in the current state this is not the case, as you can see from the video.

 

BTW what's up with the Kamysh? The damage value read was only ~0.07, yet it exploded after a few moments... additionally, in my first test, the Ifrit took two hits to kill. but when i was recording it died in one hit.

 

I would say, make it two hits to a flat part of an IFV and 3 hits to a sloped/reactive armour part, before the thing explodes in a fireball. First hit to a flat part should be near fatal though, with a high internal casualty rate. Rear hit should probably kill/injure passengers at the back. As for top attack, I'd say one hit should have a high probability to disable the turret and injure crew/passengers (of course internal damage would depend on where exactly it blows up). I guess tanks should follow a similar pattern but scaled accordingly.

 

Would recommend the default editor loadout for NATO/AAF Riflemen (AT) be reduced to one rocket (at most two). Speaking of AI, how likely are they to use the top attack mode?

[SuicideKing 233]

14 minutes ago, petek said:

Hi - Got to be honest - not happy about "Tweaked: Titan laser guidance has been removed" - if this means we can no longer "steer" the missile? How would one use an anti tank missile against a "cold target"?  Also Anti Personnel missiles are presumably not used against "hot" targets (unless body heat counts?)

 

I've done some limited testing and seems can still "steer" the missile...... am I mis-understanding something? (don't get me wrong - I want "steering" to stay!!;-))

 

cheers

Yeah, the manual/SACLOS mode remains. What they removed was the ability to lock on to a laser designated target (i.e. from a laser designator).

[petek 62]

3 minutes ago, SuicideKing said:

Yeah, the manual/SACLOS mode remains. What they removed was the ability to lock on to a laser designated target (i.e. from a laser designator).

Ah - thanks for clearing that up mate - I'd never used the Titan to lock on a designated target...... pity .... sounds like a cool facility I've missed out on!

 

[Strike_NOR 898]

2 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

I would say, make it two hits to a flat part of an IFV and 3 hits to a sloped/reactive armour part, before the thing explodes in a fireball.

From a game standpoint this makes sense. Just like good old arcade bossfights. 3 hits to win over the boss. It's predictable and easy.

 

However, from a simulation perspective this approach is faulty.

Vehicles do not posess health. Therefore, saying a hit deals 33% damage to an APC health is a cheap way of designing damage. At best you could create a parameter called "structural integrity" that simulates hull deformation or collapse at a certain threshold (falling from great heights/getting slammed by something huge or very 'explodey'). But that will be the exception as to how vehicles get destroyed.

 

Simply put: A tank does not explode because the shells damage it gradually. It generally only tends to explode if something explosive detonates inside it, such as an explosive chain reaction by hitting ammunition stowage or fuel/air mixtures. At this point the tank has switched roles from being an armored vehicle, into an expensive steel bomb. The pressure buildup inside will now either:

- Escape through an opening extremely fast (like a rocket engine -woooosh).

-Not escape and keep building until something gives away, such as the hatches, turret etc)

-rarely, the tank can actually explode into bits and pieces.

 

But more likely than any of the above, it will stop functioning due to dead crew,  dead engine, knocked out weapons, tracked or other. 

 

I hope they alter the mechanics so that the likelyhood of effectively "killing" an unprotected tank with a direct hit from 1 advanced ATGM is about 50%, but a well aimed shot always kills it (critical part hit). For large aerial missiles such as macer, most likely 90% chance of kill. I would like to see more tanks get knocked out without exploding, maybe catching fire and brewing up to ammo cookoff. After all, it's often how these things go in real life.

 

Set the tanks health to only take damage from extreme events, such as falling off a tall bridge or standing next to a 1000kg bomb. Make internal modules that can break. If ammo module takes full damage, have this cause total health loss of vehicle.

 

Look to RHS armor and IFA3 for realistic approaches to vehicular damage.

 

Etcetc

 

:)