Common Armour Values System

[SPQR 0]

I'm rather happy to hear new from you, TermiPete, and Przezdzieblo. I was starting to think the topic was dead  

Przezdzieblo is also a very reliable source of data, andI think I'll have to ask a lot to him about eastern tanks' equipments  

I was, not so long ago, testing armorstructural values. Results are rather odd  

For exemple, against a T-72BV with Armor=445, Turret=880, Hull=910 and engine=390 :

Armorstructural : 9.4

- against OFL120 (hit=897;indirectHit=10;indirectHitRange=1;explosive=false;) => Blown-up after 2 frontal hits

- against OFrP Eryx (hit=1000;indirectHit=400;indirectHitRange=3.00) and APILAS (hit=700;indirectHit=200;indirectHitRange=3.0) => Blown-up after 3 Eryx hits and one APILAs hit

Armorstructural : 4.7

- against OFL120 => Blown-up after 1 frontal hit

- against OFrP Eryx => Blown-up after 2 Eryx hits

Also, whatever the aimed part of the front side of the targeted tank (hull, track, front side turret), the main gun is always the hit part  

It seems that in the AFV's p3d, there's something making the gun being always hit when attacked directly from front of it...

So, I'd like to test what I am thinking about for the AS value, which would depends on :

- size of the AFV : light (armor protecting against some AIs' light weapons), Medium (imprevious against light weapons) and heavy (tanks)

- type of armor (advices from Przezdzieblo become more than important) : steel, laminate 1st & 2nd gen., chobham 1st, 2nd (Dorchester type) and third gen. ("Satory")

- additionnal armor : ERA 1st, 1.5 and 2nd gen., DU, Spaced, BDD type

- additionnal protections : against mines, hardened/protected top, spall liner

- Heavy ammo protection : none, protected (armored bins,... as Challenger, Ariete), Partially compartmentalized (around 50% ammos, as Leclerc, Leopard 2), Fully compartmentalized (around 90% ammos, as Abrams)

- others : petrol engine, Power turret (manual/electric vs hydraulics/electro-hydraulics

Currently, tanks are ranging from 1.5 (T-55) to 7.5 (Leopard 2A6Ex). T-80U has 5.5 (because of no ammo protection and no AT mines protections). But I think I'll need more accurate data about some tanks, especially eastern ones.

I'm also thinking about increasing tandem HEAT warhead direct damages by 20%, instead of splitting HEAT damages.

[stevevcb 3]

Quote[/b] ]I do not really get those JAM ALL, AA or AT types of ammo. Is it just a trick to force AI to shoot at human or air targets with their RPGs?

Yeah, an AT gunner will fire at aircraft with AA rockets, infantry with AP rockets, anything with ALL rockets, and vehicles only with standard AT ones.

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Quote[/b] ]I was, not so long ago, testing armorstructural values. Results are rather odd  

For exemple, against a T-72BV with Armor=445, Turret=880, Hull=910 and engine=390 :

Armorstructural : 9.4

- against OFL120 (hit=897;indirectHit=10;indirectHitRange=1;explosive=false;) => Blown-up after 2 frontal hits

- against OFrP Eryx (hit=1000;indirectHit=400;indirectHitRange=3.00) and APILAS (hit=700;indirectHit=200;indirectHitRange=3.0) => Blown-up after 3 Eryx hits and one APILAs hit

Armorstructural : 4.7

- against OFL120 => Blown-up after 1 frontal hit

- against OFrP Eryx => Blown-up after 2 Eryx hits

Indeed, odd    Any idea why less lethal "on paper" (lower DIRDMG values, almost none INDIRDMG) round is more lethal?

I see some plan in those `AS` values, could you tell about it? It looks like you made some system with those data (f.e. anti-spall liners, hydraulics, anti-explosion systems and of course armour type) with some "touchable" values. Please, give some explanation how `AS`=9.4 or 4.7 appeared.

Quote[/b] ]I'm also thinking about increasing tandem HEAT warhead direct damages by 20%, instead of splitting HEAT damages.

Ok, no splitting   So, in case of AT-only weapons the most of it`s power have to be simulate by DIRDMG. INDIRDMG probably would have low effect (=~10-20, enough to kill a man and damage light vehicle) and low range (still I see need for connect it with projectile mass).

In case of AT-MP DIRDMG value still remains real penetration. INDIRDMG should be higher than in AT-only, proportionally for round mass, but with no overkill (f.e. indirecthit=200 in case of 2kg OG-7; it is better for Maverick) and increased range as compared to AT-only.

There would be problem with HE/HESH/thermobaric warheads. Probably there would be need to know round mass and diameter. I wish I could see TB warheads exploding just like MPAT of new M1A2 SEP, but with slightly decreased size of explosion pattern  

cornhelium`s question gives CAVS chance to reanimate, please think what can CAVS give to incomming new version of popular weapon standard  

P.S. SPQR, one more thing. How about velocity and mass of projectiles you were testing?

alderous were making some trials with some kind of gravity gun, shooting projectiles with all dammage values set to 0. Even then those "gravity" bullets were killing soldiers (and making them fly too). So in OFP kinetic energy does matter.

And so, maybe this is the reason why high velocity rounds are more lethal than slower projectiles with higher hit values. And chance to simulate accurate rounds performances without increasing those values.

Kooky, thanks for explanation

[cornhelium 0]

Hello there my friends!

OK - I've done some research into real penetration values and have come up with this:

=======================================

# 84mm M136 = Penetrates 450mm RHA

( http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/AT4.html ). Weight 1.8kg

# 66mm LAW = Penetrates 300mm RHA, weight 1.8kg

(Source: WEG2001 & http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/M/M72-LAW.htm )

# 105mm PG-7VR = Penetrates 750mm RHA, weight 4.5kg. [This is the  round used for the JAM "AT" rocket]

# 85mm PG-7 = Penetrates 330mm RHA, Weight 2.25kg. Also known as "PG-7V". [This is the round used for the JAM "AA" and "All" rockets.]

# 40mm OG-7 [This round used for the JAM "Anti-Personnel" rockets]:

   Weight 2kg

   Effective area 150sqm = 12.25 x 12.25m = 6.5m Indirect Damage radius.

   DirDmg: Should be effective against Jeep=20 armour

   This squares nicely with BIS handgrenade (hit=20;indirectHit=18;indirectHitRange=7)

* PG7-VR / PG-7 / OG-7 info from:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/rpg-7.htm, http://www.fas.org/MAN/dod-101/army/docs/st100-7/chapter03/C3V.htm

=========================================

Let's plug these figures into Przez' formula:

M136:

DIRDMG : Real penetration x 100% = 450 [no change of hit points]

INDIRDMG : Real penetration  x 5% = 22 [decrease of 53 for "AA"/"AP"/"All" round, decrease of 258 for "AT" round]

INDIRDMG RNG : 1.5 x Warhead weight in KG = 2.7 [decrease of .04]

M72:

DIRDMG : Real penetration x 100% = 300 [no change for "AT"/"AP"/"All" versions, increase of 175 for "AA"]

INDIRDMG : Real penetration  x 5% = 15 [decrease of 285 for "AT" version, decrease of 60 for "AA"/"AP"/"All"]

INDIRDMG RNG : 1.5 x Warhead weight in KG = 2.7 [decrease of .04]

PG-7VR:

DIRDMG : Real penetration x 100% = 750 [increase of 300]

INDIRDMG : Real penetration  x 5% = 38 [decrease of 242]

INDIRDMG RNG : 1.5 x Warhead weight in KG = 6.8 [increase of 3.7]

PG-7:

DIRDMG : Real penetration x 100% = 330 [decrease of 120] [increase of 205 for "AA" version]

INDIRDMG : Real penetration  x 5% = 17 [decrease of 58]

INDIRDMG RNG : 1.5 x Warhead weight in KG = 3.38 [increase of 0.28]

OG-7:

DIRDMG : Intuitive value, kills Jeep, will hurt Blackhawk = 20 [decrease of 430]

INDIRDMG : Based on straight split = 20 [decrease of 55]

INDIRDMG RNG : Based on real effective area of 150sq metres = 6.5 [increase of 3.4]

These are some pretty drastic changes, but the values seem to make a lot more sense in real-life terms.

As you can see, life is gonna get hard for West AT teams, but as Przez says, symmetry is the enemy of art

I lean towards using these values for M136 and M72, regardless of the JAM AT/AA/AP/All roles. For anti-personnel, the rounds have lost a lot of power, but still have comparable blast-radius to JAM2. On the East side, the various rounds look nicely balanced to the roles.

We'll give these values a good long test in JAM3 final Beta and see how they feel.

Of course, the next step is to add more modern and powerful AT rounds to JAM, but I don't think they'll make it into this release. You'll just have to use ORCS/Earl & Suchey stuff until then (...oh, the hardship  )

Cheers,

CH

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Lol, I feel guilty now

Few things:

- there is important voice, that splitting DIR/INDIR DMGs is not neccesarry - so you can make some (DIR DMG) values more simple, without counting. To find INDIR DMG counting is still needed, sorry.

So DIR DMG = 100% penetration (in case of AT-only)

INDIR DMG = let it be those 5% (of real penetration)

- probably life of soldiers with Russian AT-weapons would not be so pink. Even with the newest, powerful RPG round it might be remembered that:

- RPGs are not the most accurate weapon

- 4,5 kg projectiles is heavy one, so AT soldier would have only 2-3 (so maybe those rounds would occupy 2 slots)

-AFAIR first PG-7 could penetrate ~260 mm RHAe, modernised one could do about 300 (and I do not remember if it has another designation, f.e. PG-7M or something; maybe PG-7V is one more modernisation of standard PG-7 round; it is more than possible that so called Third World still uses standard PG-7 round, pen. 260 mm and some limited APERS effect).

- West side have Abramses :P RPG hit in 3rd generation tank could not eliminate it with high crew casualties, Russian tanks, which construction is based on 2+ generation vehicles family are much more vulnerable... - but to simulate it it is task for CAVS.

[cornhelium 0]

Hehe, no probs mate. I should have read yours & SPQRs posts properly.

Edited above post with your formula. Direct hit values are now unchanged for West AT, only the indirect values have big changes, which would seem right.

Cheers

CH

[Przezdzieblo 0]

If something on betatest is wrong, blame the system, not me

btw, where did you have found on fas.org or globalsecurity.org those values about effective area of OG-7??

Trying to find any comparations of APERS performances of 0,250 kg grenade, 0,5 kg "mortar" rifle grenade and anti-personel projectiles like 2 kg OG-7... it could be in sq meters and any proposal, how someone, who cannot count, would count it to have nice INDIRDMG range value

 

One more www source about RPG-7

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl02-e.htm

It seems that guns.ru now support not only guns

[BlackScorpion 0]

For weight comparison, M16A2 loaded with 30 rnd mag weights 4.47 kgs, and a M249 weights 7.1 kgs...

[SPQR 0]

I see some plan in those `AS` values, could you tell about it? It looks like you made some system with those data (f.e. anti-spall liners, hydraulics, anti-explosion systems and of course armour type) with some "touchable" values. Please, give some explanation how `AS`=9.4 or 4.7 appeared.

Thanks Przezdzieblo for the data about the gravity gun,... and for all  

9.4 was calculted from an unbearable system born from my messed mind. Half this value (seemed too strong) and you've got 4.7  

So I restarted all, easier. But it's actually untested. So, the Philosophal stone hasn't been found yet  

All values are not definitive :

Quote[/b] ]AMMUNITIONS :

PEN (Penetration) taken as Reference

For kinetics projectiles, use the PEN value at 1km, or correct it grossly the PEN value according the given distance and calibre of the KE ammunition=>

120 - 125 mm => +/- 50 mm/km

105 - 115 mm => +/- 40 mm/km

90 - 100 mm => +/- 35 mm/km

70 - 85 mm => +/- 30 mm/km

Ammunition Type (Classe)

Direct Damage

Indirect Damage

Indirect Damage Range

AP / HVAP (KE)

Pen x1.2

Calibre x 0.1

Calibre / 400

APDS / HVAPDS (KE) /

Pen x 1.25

Calibre x 0.1

Calibre / 400

APFSDS (KE)

Pen x 1.3

Calibre x 0.1

Calibre / 400

APFSDS-DU (KE)

Pen x 1.35

Calibre x 0.15

Calibre / 60

HEAT (CE)

Pen x 1 (HEAT, DU liner : add 0.05 to direct damage factor)

Calibre x 0.4

Calibre / 40

HEAT Tandem (CE)

Pen x 1.2 (HEAT, DU liner : add 0.05 to direct damage factor)

Calibre x 0.4

Calibre / 40

-MP option (CE)

---

Calibre x 0.4

Calibre / 10

HESH (CE)

Calibre x 3

Calibre x 1

Calibre / 10

HE (CE)

Calibre x 1-1.5

Calibre x 1

Calibre / 6.5

HE-Frag (CE-Frag)

Calibre x 0.5-1

Calibre x 0.6

Calibre / 4

-------------------------------------------------

ARMOR STRUCTURAL :

AS Basis :

- Light AFV (armour versus infantry weapons < 20mm) = 2.0

- Medium AFV (Bradley A2, Marder, BMP3,...versus small caliber ammunitions) = 3.0

- Heavy Armor (MBT, Heavy APC/IFV) = 2.0

Special Armor :

- Aluminium/Steel RHA = + 0.0

- Laminate 1st generation (T64/72) = + 1.0

- Laminate 2nd generation (T-80/90) = + 1.5

- Chobham 1st generation (M1/M1A1 Abrams, Challenger 1, Leopard 2A1-A3) = + 1.5

- Dorchester/Chobham 2nd generation (Challenger 2, M1A2 SEP) = +2.0

- Satory/Chobham 3rd generation (Leopard 2A6+, Leclerc) = + 2.5

- ERA 1st generation (Kontakt-1) = + 0.5

- ERA 1.5st generation (Brenus, IDF) = + 1.0

- ERA 2nd generation (Kontakt-5) = + 1.5

- DU applique = + 0.5

- Light spaced armour (Leopard 1A3-A4, up-armoured AMX-10RC) = +0.25

- Spaced armour (Merkava) = + 0.5

- BDD armour (T-55, T62) = + 0.5

Additional Equipments :

- Spall liner = + 0.5

- Anti-mine belly armor = + 0.5

- Partial hardened top (Leopard 2A6Ex, maybe Leclerc) = + 0.25

- Full hardened top (Merkava 3+, T72/80 with Kontakt top armor) = + 0.5

- Petrol Engine = - 1.0

- Diesel Engine/Gas turbine = + 0.0

-------------------------------------------------

ARMOR :

Light AFVs (only protected against ammunitions to20mm not included) :

Global Armor :

Armor >= 10 x (directdamage value of the stopped ammunition)

Maybe this is 10 x (directdamage+indirdamage values of the stopped ammunition)

For exemple, if you are creating an AFV protected against BIS 12.7mm HMG (dirdamage=13), i.e. AIs won’t fire upon your AFV with this weapon or lighter ones

This is not an absolute rule. But with rapid tests and increasing the armor from a few points, it’ll be good. (BIS M2 fires at armor=130, not 140)

Localized Armors :

For the main body, use x0.3 instead of 1.0 (rather thin skinned) - NOT TESTED

For the engine or armorfuel, do not hesitate to use numbers as x3 – x4, unless very fragile and vulnerable. Then the vehicle will explode immediatly - TESTED with VAB upon BIS AT Mine

                                 -------------------

Medium & Heavy AFVs :

Global Armor :

Combat Weight (tons) x10 ou Best CE Armor value = armor

Exemples :

- T-55 : armor=360

- T-72BV : armor=910

Localized Armors :

Turret => Turret Front

Hull => Hull Front

Track => Hull Side

Engine => Hull Rear (300 max for Petrol engines, 600 max for others)

Use the know CE protection level values

Unknown features :

the gun : is it only the barrel or barel with mantlet. With the frontal hit localizations I saw, it seems that the BIS tanks p3d use the second solution. Then the gun armor maybe could become the frontal armor, and turretarmor would be defined from real turret side armor.

Passthrough :

For heavy compartmentalized AFVs, with heavily protected ammunitions, Hull and Turret could be passthrough=0

This kinf of AFV shouldn’t be harder to immobilize, but it should be harder to make it explode.

- NOT COMPLETLY TESTED

-------------------------------------------------

MOBILITY :

Speed :

Tracked AFV => as they go mainly off-road, it should be the max off-road speed chosen as basic speed

Wheeled AFV & vehicles => as they go mainly on-road, it should be the max on-road speed chosen as basic speed

For their off-road-speed ingame, use Terraincoeff according to its model :

- All-Terrain = 2

- Military class (trucks) = 3

- Civilian road vehicles = 4

Acceleration & Engine type :

Unless we find a value that we can modify, here is what I propose to “simulate†the power behind the engine :

Diesel = Base Speed – 10.0

Petrol =  Base Speed -05.0

Diesel turbo/turbo-charged = Base Speed + 00.0

Gas turbine = Base Speed + 05.0

Diesel Hyperbar = Base Speed + 07.5

Sorry Pals, the Leclerc reaches 0 to 32 km/h in 5.5s against 6.8s for the Abrams (the old ligt M1A1 model, others are heavier), 6.6s from 0 to 30 km/h for the T-80U, and 11.8s from 0 to 40km/h for the oversized Leopard 2A5  

All ideas and corrections are welcome

[ag_smith 0]

For weight comparison, M16A2 loaded with 30 rnd mag weights 4.47 kgs, and a M249 weights 7.1 kgs...

Which means what....?

[cornhelium 0]

Hi Przez,

Quote[/b] ]btw, where did you have found on fas.org or globalsecurity.org those values about effective area of OG-7??

Doh! Sorry, gave the wrong link. Got the OG-7 info here.

PG-7VR here.

Effective area is 150m sq. Thus treating it as a 12.25 x 12.25 "box", a circle inside the "box" would have a 6.125m radius. Call it 6.5m for luck  

Cheers,

CH

[cornhelium 0]

Hi there,

I've quickly tested these out in-game. Some initial comments:

* Units carrying the "Anti-Personnel" rounds seem slower to use them. They'll still pop one off now and again but definitely less often. This might be due to the reduced IndDmg.

Reducing the "cost" setting seems to fix this. It's strange that the "AT" and "AA" rounds inherit cost=5000 from the BIS LAW, whereas the cost for "AP" and "ALL" rounds is increased to 10000.

* OG-7 (DirDmg20, IndDmg20, IndDmgRng 6.5):

Still deadly against infantry, due to the increased blast radius. A lot of fun to use. I might increase DirDmg to 30, as performance against jeeps/trucks doesn't quite feel right. I'll also bump up the IndDmgRng from 6.5 to 7 like the BIS grenade.

* PG-7VR (DirDMG 750, IndDmg 38, IndDmgRng 6.8):

Deadly against tanks. 1 hit gives a BIS M1A1 system failures.

* PG-7 "AA"/"All" (DirDmg 330, IndDmg 17, IndDmgRng 3.4):

Knocks AH-1 and UH-60 out of the sky. Half the time the crew bail and survive. Half the time they are killed. AH-64 tends to survive one hit, turn around and whup the shooters

Units seem happier to use the PG-7 "All" against infantry than the "AP" OG-7, perhaps due to the much higher DirDmg. Again, it looks like decreasing the OG-7 "cost" setting is the way to get aggressive AI use and keep the damage realistic.

Cheers,

CH

[SPQR 0]

An interesting site for all kinds of missiles, data, specifications & subsystems :

Missile.Index

[Przezdzieblo 0]

And more...

http://www.knoe.odgw.net/military.htm

Guy put into it a lot of work.

[AgentFox2 0]

Awesome stuff, guys. I am really in awe of your knowledge and research.

Will CAVS also standardize sensor/AI sensitivity and ranges?

What I mean is differentiating between a tank that has at the most light amplification or day sights, and one that has thermal imaging. Or even further, differentiating between 1st Generation and 3rd Generation thermal imagers.

Nowdays, this is much more important in an armored engagement than which armor is slightly better than the other. A fight between two modern MBTs, with modern ammunition, would most likely come down to which one can see and successfully hit the other first, because the first shot will probably be the last.

Would there be any way of standardizing the sensitivity, radar, and camouflage values to reflect different types of sensors?

Best Regards

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Awesome stuff, guys. I am really in awe of your knowledge and research.

Will CAVS also standardize sensor/AI sensitivity and ranges?

What I mean is differentiating between a tank that has at the most light amplification or day sights, and one that has thermal imaging. Or even further, differentiating between 1st Generation and 3rd Generation thermal imagers.

Nowdays, this is much more important in an armored engagement than which armor is slightly better than the other. A fight between two modern MBTs, with modern ammunition, would most likely come down to which one can see and successfully hit the other first, because the first shot will probably be the last.

Would there be any way of standardizing the sensitivity, radar, and camouflage values to reflect different types of sensors?

Best Regards

Would there be any standarisation? All in addonmakers` hands ;)

Things you are talking about would need much more complex researches, both real tanks equipment and OFP config mechanisms. Hard task. But for the start, important things about tanks:

day sights type and quality

- "normal", telescopic sight (probably with range-finding scale)

- sight and optical rangefinder (f.e M47, T72)

- sight and laser rangefinder (f.e. M60A3, T72A), probably should differ because of generations (TPD-K1 today is really obsolete), type of laser ray etc.

night sights and quality

- no night sight (so in game crew with no NVG)

- active night sight

- passive night vision - image intensifiers (1, 2, 3 generations, do all crew members have one etc.)

- TI sights (again, generations, quality, who from crew has and who has not etc.)

Fire Control System

- no FCS

- FCS present; generations, quality, complexity etc.

- day-only "hunter-killer" (f.e. Challenger 2)

- day-night "hunter-killer" (f.e. M1A2 SEP, Leclerc)

Camouflage values? Another not easy one. Anti-radar camo would be modified because of tanks shape (f.e. Challenger 2 turret was modeled to reduce radar image of tank), some paint with radiowaves absorbent (PT-91 Twardy ), small thermal signature (NOT Abrams ) and small size.

So there would probably appear new list of factors, similar for those SPQR made for `AS`...

[TermiPete 0]

Hiya there

I think it's time for my holiday to be up. I don't like leaving things unfinished so I'll be getting cooking with my EECP/CAVS test config again now.

I'll have a read over the most recent thoughts and modelling since I went AWOL.

TP

[TermiPete 0]

For those interested, I have been testing a CAVS EECP config using the most recent CAVS model from SPQR. Feels good!

I have been in discussions with Kuriyami about implementing CAVS into EECP. This may or may not happen - if it doens't then we will produce a complete JAM 3 / CAVS config for EECP.

The system feels good, so let's make it happen!!!

TP

[Thunderbird 0]

WGL values seem pretty good too though...

[Major Fubar 0]

I would LOVE too see addon makers adopt some klind of universal figures for armor and damage values for addons, but I don't think it will ever happen. Someone from ABC addon studios will think that an Abrams should have an armor value of 180 (to pull a figure out of the air) based on their in depth research, but XYZ addon studios will swear black and blue that 180 is waaay to high, that they have military experts on their team...etc. etc. If you ask me, the simplest way to insure consistency would be to base the figures for addon on the original BIS figures...

This is large part why most of my LAN group doesn't like using addons - they are concerned that the weapons, vehicles or units they are using may be grossly overpowered and taking away much of the challenge of the game...

[TermiPete 0]

Hey Ho

TB84

Yep - they sure are, and more than anything else WGL is a good CONSISTENT system. You'll see from all the discussion in this thread that it doesn't address some key issues that need to be incorporated into a good system that makes sense to (almost) everybdy.

Proof will be in the pudding though. I'll have a CAVS config.cpp for EECP 0.44 available in 2 days for people to play with.

MAJ. FUBAR

I couldn't agree more, which is why I am doing this - so many great addons that you CAN'T use together or at all.

My logic with playing with EECP is that if we can have a broadly accepted base version of OFP that includes CAVS and JAM compatibility from THE GROUND UP, then any add-ons can work with this (or have a second config).

I am intending to do a CAVS/JAM conversion of Operation Northstar next and see how this feels.

The CAVS page on my crappy OFSI website outlines the reasoning behind CAVS and the system for producing values.

I'll look for some feedback once people have played with the CAVS EECP.

TP

[TermiPete 0]

Hey ho

I just need to put in the ATGM values and test them out, and then I'll post up a link.

I've been doing some testing on it and I like the feel

TP

[TermiPete 0]

CAVS EECP testing base config beta1 available!

CAVS EECP 0.44 testing config

* Requires Kuriyami's EECP 0.44

* If your PC is <2.5GHz, set the override in the ECP config file to low or medium

DONE:

CAVS ammo values for:

* BMP1: PG-9 HEAT, OG-15 HE-F, AT3 Malyutka 2

* BMP2: M929 APFSDS-T, 30mm HE-F, AT5 Spandrel B Tandem HEAT

* T72B: 3BM42M APFSDS-T, 3BK29M Tandem HEAT

* T80UE: 3BM42M APFSDS-T, 3BK29M Tandem HEAT

* M2A2 ODS: M919 APFSDS-T DU, M792 HEI-T, TOW 2A Tandem HEAT

* M60A3: M900 APFSDS-T DU, M456A2 HEAT

* M1A2 SEP: M829A3 APFSDS-T DU, M830A1 HEAT-MP-T

* T72M1 (res): 3BM42 APFSDS-T, 3BK29 Tandem HEAT

CAVS armour values for:

* BMP1

* BMP ambulance

* BMP2

* T72BV

* T72M1

* T80UE

* ZSU 23-4

* M113A3

* M113 Ambulance

* M2A2 ODS

* M1A2 SEP

* M60A3

* Vulcan

Correct cannon firing rates for AI in:

* M2A2 ODS

* BMP2

This makes a huge difference to the effectiveness of these vehicles

NOT DONE

* Helicopter cannons or ATGMs (except TOW)

* T72, T80 ATGMs

* AT3 older model for Res BMP

* ammo for Vulcan, ZSU

* BRDM 2

Have a blat!

TP

[Taconic 0]

Great news. I'll be checking this out later.

[TermiPete 0]

Hope some people have had a play with the EECP 0.44 CAVS config! Kuriyami has had a look over it and intends to work in CAVS compliance into the new EECP!

With this in mind, I have started working on a cavs_ammo.cpp (to get made into a cavsammo.pbo) to provide standardised CFGAMMO munitions values for:

* AT rockets

* ATGMs

* vehicle mounted MGs

* small calibre cannons (25-30mm)

* large calibre cannons

Kinda like JAM - only bigger guns

I'm not sure about incorporating SAMs - maybe this is being done within the ACES project . . .

While I won't include any models or sounds to individualise the rounds, the idea is that addon makers just point at these base configs and customise the specifics - less work for them and more consistency for us.

Yay!

I'll post up an updated version of my crazy-ass spreadsheet too in the next few days.

TP