Jump to content
Asheara

Tanks - Damage improvements

Recommended Posts

Why can't the vehicle itself be the wreck? Like, if the vehicle is wrecked, instead of swapping it for a crude wreck, just let the  vehicle in its current state remain. This way it would seamlessly  and gradually transfer from working condition to destroyed, often with no way to tell from a distance, which would also increase realism
@Asheara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@meowcat

 

Well, technically it can.

 

A lot depends now on how the damage mechanics will change, but if the devs reduce the overall damage dealt to vehicle global health (hithull) then you are far more likely to see modules/crew being knocked out before the actual vehicle is destroyed (hithull dmg 1).

 

Which is more realistic.

 

In terms of wreck models there is a very good reason to keep them and that is when a vehicle catastrophic event occurs (ammo storage detonation or fuel fire/explosion). If such an event occurs, the tank/vehicle can very well disintegrate, where only the strongest parts remain intact. In other words : look like a wrecked model ingame.

 

@Asheara has already confirmed that they considered ammunition hitpoints, but that it was abandoned due to complexity/time constraints. However, she also stated that hithull (the vehicles global health hitpoint) could technically be modified to a size/shape comparable to ammo storage - although she did not promise that vanilla vehicles would receive this modification.

If they had combined that "repurposing" of the hithull hitpoint/firegeometry (to act as ammorack) together with reducing the amount of damage hithull receives from ricochets, non-penetrations and perforations that do not directly strike the hithull firegeometry; we may see a much more realistic representation of armor destruction/damage simulation.

 

I am waiting patiently to see how things progress, as devs are allegedly still working on damage mechanics and nothing is finalized yet. Hopes are up for increased vehicle survivability, but decreased module/crew survivability IF penetration occurs.

 

After all, AT weapons are designed to kill by puncturing the hard shell to get inside to the soft vitals. A tank isn't of much use if the crew are dead, but it may still be 100% functional (if nothing else important was hit).

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vehicle itself should be the wreck, this is a far more realistic thing than swapping it for a wreck model. I mean your argument is to choose the option that is 50% worse to prevent a situation that would be only 5% worse. An exploded tank that looks like the actual tank with the turret on the same position is a far better solution that this primitive operation flashpoint tradition of swapping the tank for a low poly wreck that of course can not be anything else than the same thing for all dead tanks of the same type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, meowcat said:

The vehicle itself should be the wreck, this is a far more realistic thing than swapping it for a wreck model. I mean your argument is to choose the option that is 50% worse to prevent a situation that would be only 5% worse. An exploded tank that looks like the actual tank with the turret on the same position is a far better solution that this primitive operation flashpoint tradition of swapping the tank for a low poly wreck that of course can not be anything else than the same thing for all dead tanks of the same type.

Just a nitpick , in OFP detroyed objects deformed in a weird way. What we have now is much better ;)

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, meowcat said:

No it's not better.

This is a tank wreck in real life:

yes but that requires animating and simulating every part of the exterior and interior to get that same effect, or creating lots of different replacement models, or lots of different textures. 

 

The current solution may not be better, but it is acceptable really, given their schedule and deadlines, resources and Arma 3's current stage in its life cycle. I'd rather the focus was on getting the other bits right, the wreck thing is honestly more of an aesthetic thing.

EDIT: If you search for "tank explosions" on YT, you'll find some clips from recent conflicts in which the turret gets blown clean off, or the occupants are blown out, etc. Too NSFW to post here really. what i'm saying is, there will be too many permutations and combinations to account for unless it's built in to the simulation (e.g. the BeamNG.drive sandbox/physics sim).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they could simply use the exact vehicle in its exact state as the wreck and darken the texture a bit. This is a far better solution than swapping the model. Even if it explodes, a tank that actually resembles the original vehicle and its turret rotation is better than a metal low poly box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefit that it would provide is purely visual and has no effect on gameplay compared to the current system. Maybe it will look better, but function comes before form and the current system is "good enough for army work" Besides, dedicating resources to alter this particular system would reduce resources available for other things, like bug fixes or potential last-minute small content additions like my judge dredd helmet bisplz and I really don't think it's worth taking time out of making sure the thing actually works properly. I have 8 9 10 open tickets related to Tanks on the feedback tracker and that hardly represents the full extent of what the community as a whole has found in terms of bugs, or the number of potential blockers that may still be lurking that we haven't seen yet

 

Instead of asking for things we want added like my judge dredd helmet bisplz, our time is better spent doing what dev branch is for: trying our hardest to break shit and then reporting what and how we broke it to BIS so they can fix it

https://feedback.bistudio.com/project/view/1/

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I wonder what's the intended places of Titan AT and 9M135 Vorona? Titan system is a bit lighter than Vorona and support both IR homing and SACLOS guidance with both direct and top-down attack mode, where Vorona only support direct SACLOS attack. I guess maybe Vorona is supposed to deal more damage than Titan AT, but didn't observe much difference in current build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Markle said:

Hi I wonder what's the intended places of Titan AT and 9M135 Vorona? Titan system is a bit lighter than Vorona and support both IR homing and SACLOS guidance with both direct and top-down attack mode, where Vorona only support direct SACLOS attack. I guess maybe Vorona is supposed to deal more damage than Titan AT, but didn't observe much difference in current build.

This is more suited to the missile flight thread, though AFAIK they were intending the titan to be lock on only with the vorona filling in the saclos void.

 

Vorona is tandem while titan is not, meaning titan is useless when hitting ERA while the Vorona should not have any issues. This is why Titan also has top attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Vorona is tandem while titan is not, meaning titan is useless when hitting ERA while the Vorona should not have any issues. This is why Titan also has top attack.

 

Basically what Scavenjer said, except I do not think the devs said the Titan AT was single warhead, but definitely lighter/smaller and with less armor penetration capabilities.

 

The Vorona is a big fat missile. It'll mess up anyone's day and doesn't care much about ERA :)

 

Among other balances:

 

Titan AT is fire-and-forget, meaning the shooter can relocate to a safe position and reload before the shot has landed.

 

The Vorona is SACLOS meaning manual guidance and constant line of sight to target is required (also it is harder to aim).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

AFAIK they were intending the titan to be lock on only with the vorona filling in the saclos void.

 

But since Vorona is CSAT-specific... Does that mean NATO and AAF infantries will have to use bunch of MAAWS / PCML to take down static & cold MBTs? May sound acceptable, but not that faction-balanced I think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

 

Basically what Scavenjer said, except I do not think the devs said the Titan AT was single warhead, but definitely lighter/smaller and with less armor penetration capabilities.

 

The Vorona is a big fat missile. It'll mess up anyone's day and doesn't care much about ERA :)

 

Among other balances:

 

Titan AT is fire-and-forget, meaning the shooter can relocate to a safe position and reload before the shot has landed.

 

The Vorona is SACLOS meaning manual guidance and constant line of sight to target is required (also it is harder to aim).

Though the max range on the Vorona seems to be 2KM while the Titan is 4KM(?) aiming both in saclos mode for me the Vorona is easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Markle said:

 

But since Vorona is CSAT-specific... Does that mean NATO and AAF infantries will have to use bunch of MAAWS / PCML to take down static & cold MBTs? May sound acceptable, but not that faction-balanced I think...

Well, yes, but titan is still an option though not on cold vehicles (IIRC firing does make them lockable after some shots) and the PCML has overfly mode which is quite potent though short ranged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding manual guidance, It is a much more valuable attack mode compared to top attack fire and forget. The maps in ArmA III are full of clutter that breaks a lock all the time. Direct attack manual mode is often the only way to engange a partly hidden target. Players already know to well how to fool the ArmA II Locking mechanism.  This makes the Nyx AT a quite underwhelming asset currently, no manual guidance and it cant lock for some reason when partly hidden from the target itself.

 

More and more often we do not employ "tactics" in ArmA III we rather play around the engine and unit limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is plans of penetration thickness of Vorona can penetrate MBTs front turret and hull composite armor?

I think it is realistic if this weapon is Kornet? or something newer russian AT missiles, and MBTs desined in cold war and improvemented recentry(if 2035 MBTs, im no idea). 

If Kornet? or something newer russian AT missiles,  it need have more speed(400m/s, it looks like 200m/s) and long range, if metis or older one it will not pen front armor of MBTs(weakspot will be penetrated).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fallschirmjgergewehr said:

Is plans of penetration thickness of Vorona can penetrate MBTs front turret and hull composite armor?

I think it is realistic if this weapon is Kornet? or something newer russian AT missiles, and MBTs desined in cold war and improvemented recentry(if 2035 MBTs, im no idea). 

If Kornet? or something newer russian AT missiles,  it need have more speed(400m/s, it looks like 200m/s) and long range, if metis or older one it can't pen front armor of MBTs(weakspot maybe pnetrated).

It's supposed to represent the Metis-M, though Kornet nor Metis-M would be able to penetrate the turret front of the MBTs we have in-game, lower hull maybe...

Then again, these tanks are all supposed to have APS....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scavenjer said:

Then again, these tanks are all supposed to have APS...

Do you mean Vorona can pen MBT from front bec of blance so that this these tanks have Soft kill APS(kill titan) so SACLOS needed?

To deviate, kornet missile will pen MBTs( atleast leopard2a4(killed by Tow?missile(kornet has more penetration) from front).I thought Kornet was good choice more metis.

edit

Tow maybe killed other tanks from front( I can't make sure) but Leo2a4 estimated 910 mm turret armor for heat, Metis-M1 have 950mm so it will pen.

Though Leopaed 2 revolution is after almost 30 years so i can't imagin it can be pen by Metis-M1.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fallschirmjgergewehr said:

Do you mean Vorona can pen MBT from front bec of blance so that this these tanks have Soft kill APS(kill titan) so SACLOS needed?

To deviate, kornet missile will pen MBTs( atleast leopard2a4(killed by Tow?( missile(kornet has more penetration) from front) .I think Kornet was good choice more metis but too late for saying sorry.

It's hard to tell anything right now since both, weapons and armor systems are still WIP. Currenty it is safe to say that a single Vorona Missile won't neither kill a MBT nor an IFV with slat armor applied with one hit to the side or front. The rear is a different story, its a safe mobilty kill.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fallschirmjgergewehr said:

Do you mean Vorona can pen MBT from front bec of blance so that this these tanks have Soft kill APS(kill titan) so SACLOS needed?

To deviate, kornet missile will pen MBTs( atleast leopard2a4(killed by Tow?( missile(kornet has more penetration) from front) .I think

Kornet was good choice more metis but too late for saying sorry.

Eh, no they currently don't have APS and those leopard 2 tanks were all hit in the side armour when they were using them as bunkers alone without infantry support or common sense.

AFAIK not a single leopard 2 so far has been penetrated in the front.

 

Metis might be able to penetrate the front though, but then we're talking about leopard 2A4 not the leopard Revolution with AMAP that we have in-game.

 

Edit: in-game we will probably see the Vorona be quite effective against most MBTs without heavy ERA, though I still think it'll likely only be a disabling hit or require 2-3 hits to fully destroy a tank.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Asheara May I ask you how much AT weapons are still in WIP? because right now they seem... arcadish. They rarely make hitpoints damage, only global damage, and so they destroy the tank in N shots, wherever you hit the tank: 3 with titan and Vorona, 4 with RPG-42.  Just to know if right now it's useful play around with those toys or not.

P.s: The Tandem-HEAT for the Vorona it's an educated guess i suppose, because right now it doesn't pass trough any ERA.


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, armilio said:

@Asheara May I ask you how much AT weapons are still in WIP? because right now they seem... really arcadish. They rarely make hitpoints damage, only global damage, and so they destroy the tank in N shots, wherever you hit the tank: 3 with titan and Vorona, 4 with RPG-42.  
 

There is a significant difference in where you hit (direct/top) and the applique armor applied. Prior it was significantly easier since aspect did not really matter. Now it makes a significant difference if you attack the front in direct mode or the top in top attack mode. The real difference now is tank vs. tank at long ranges. Btw the most random results happen when combat happens in motion. Static firing tests turn out all the same. Under the hoods basically all games are "Hitpoint" based.

 

btw. the whole game is basically WIP in Dev Branch. If you see something odd, report it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Beagle said:

There is a significant difference in where you hit (direct/top) and the applique armor applied. Prior it was significantly easier since aspect did not really matter. Now it makes a significant difference if you attack the front in direct mode or the top in top attack mode. The real difference now is tank vs. tank at long ranges.

 

Frankly, i'm not seeing this difference. Even with top-attack mode, it doesn't change that much.

I'm trying it again right now, titan vs Varsuk. 0.73 of damage after 2 top-attack mode missiles, and the Varsuk it's still shotting and moving. Third missile and BOOOM, 1.0 damage, destroyed.

Same for Kuma and Slammer. 

The T-140 seems have better results, turret damaged more frequently at least.

Indeed i'm reading in the "weapons improvements" topic that the HEAT it's probably still in WIP, so... i'm full of hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, armilio said:

 

Frankly, i'm not seeing this difference. Even with top-attack mode, it doesn't change that much.

I'm trying it again right now, titan vs Varsuk. 0.73 of damage after 2 top-attack mode missiles, and the Varsuk it's still shotting and moving. Third missile and BOOOM, 1.0 damage, destroyed.

Same for Kuma and Slammer. 

The T-140 seems have better results, turret damaged more frequently at least.

Indeed i'm reading in the "weapons improvements" topic that the HEAT it's probably still in WIP, so... i'm full of hope.

They are still not using HEAT/tandem HEAT simulation IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

They are still not using HEAT/tandem HEAT simulation IIRC.

 

It's what i thought yes, i couldn't find a confirmation for that. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×