Common Armour Values System

[FireflyPL 0]

Plus one more Merkava mk. 3 destroyed 5th Sept. 2002 by 70-kg IED, driver was killed

Are you sure about the date? I cant find information about this incident.

EDIT: Found it in Ha'aretz. It was Merkava MK2. Driver killed, 3 crewmen injured.

[SPQR 0]

- standard KE rounds (as BM32/42, M829 up to A1 version, OFL120E2, even DM53) should not KO high-end enemy tank with one hit - and force crew to bail out after multiply hits

- the newest KE round (BM42M, M829A3, PROCIPAC etc.) should KO enemy tanks with one hit, but without destroying vehicle, only forcing crew to bail out

- the newest CE rounds and ATGMs should not KO enemy tanks (except older vehicles) with one hit

- ATGMs that attacks from above should KO enemy tank even with one hit (so I think there must be some + modificator for Javelins, Bills etc.)

I do indeed agree with you except on one point, when you classe in the same category 22:1 length rod's BM42M with 30+:1 length rods' M929A3 and PROCIPAC.

I would rather class BM42M in the first, even if has a two contact points sabot and an improved penetration power upon the older BM32/BM42, in the first category.

Here are some elements I wrote, just for thinking at the first place (following my own idea of using CE power, CE protection and increased KE power). This is not a definitive work, as it has to be seriously tested and as the structural figure could bring us closer to a more realist combat.

Quote[/b] ]

MBT

For the global ARMOR figure =>

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

I used to write ArmorStructural=2 and 1 for special armors, but there's currently a new way to search in...

Localized Armor figures :

Turret => Turret Front in mm

Hull => Hull Front in mm

Track => Hull Side in mm

Engine => Hull Rear in mm

Possibility of PassThrough=0, depending of special turrets under armor (AMX-10P, Striker,...), fire protection, ammo protection,...

PassThrough=0 for the gun

Light AFV

Currently the most problematic

Combat Weight (tons) x10 = armor

ArmorStructural=2, 3 ou 4 ?

Localized Armor figures : idem, in mm x2 if modified figure <= 120

Mobility

Track => max speed

Wheel (AFV) => max speed / off-road speed for terrainCoef or TC = 1.5

Restricted Wheel (car&truck) => max speed / off-road speed for terrainCoef or TC = 3

COMBAT RANGE - PEN CALCULATION FOR KINETIC (KE) ROUNDS

Reference PEN  = Pen value in mm at 1km (engagement range)

If found figures are given at other ranges :

Cannon calibre :

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

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

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

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

nothing purely scientific

AP & HEAT ROUNDS

KE : explosive=false

KE-DU : explosive=true

CE (HEAT, HESH, HE, HE-Frag,...) : explosive=true

ROUNDS' DAMAGES

KE APFSDS

DIRDMG : PEN x1.35

INDIRDMG : Calibre / 10

INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 500

KE APFSDS DU

DIRDMG : PEN x1.35

INDIRDMG : Calibre / 10

INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 80

KE AP / APDS

DIRDMG : PEN x1.15 (less efficient)

INDIRDMG : Calibre / 10

INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 500

CE

DIRDMG : PEN

INDIRDMG : Calibre / 10

INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 50

CE-MP

DIRDMG : PEN

INDIRDMG : Calibre / 6

INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 25

HE

DIRDMG : Calibre / 2.5

INDIRDMG : Calibre / 5

INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 10

HEP / HESH

DIRDMG : PEN

INDIRDMG : PEN

INDIRDMG RNG : Calibre / 50

Thus, no figure is definitive, just a first wondering needing improvents

[calm_terror 0]

there is another factor to put in alot of countries either use shitty poor quality KE rounds like iraq and syria. made with poor metals like lead or iron instead of tungsen or DU.

or evne poor unpure tungsten. then some countries like egyt and israel who use very high end and high quality tungsten.

then also you get up to DU used by russian(some tungsten still used), USA, UK, maybe france and unconfirmed Israel. but then even in DU you can end up using poor quality DU like russia with all their buget problems or evne some shit hole like iran or north korea who might try to make DU rounds but use poor quality. then you also have the cray factor KE rounds lose like 90% of their kill power at 2km's or less. alot angle would effect how bad the round hits. like in the merkava mk4 the steep angle on the front turret would help some.

so just because an round is named the same does not mean it is the same big case in point iraq..

as for the merkava taken out by an bomb. there is a few things 100kg's of like C4 does not = 100kg's of tnt.

my memory was schetchy aboot that anyways .

also does not say if it was an sharped charge or just a pile.

just c4 or tnt or an case bomb etc.. hell it could have been an rigged up line mine.. but yes the bellies of most tanks are very weak. tho israel is one country to learn and improve. unlike the US wich ignores alot of lessons leaving thin armoured roofs, lack era, etc.

israel goes oh ok so let's change that.

they could have already began uparmoring the bells of new merkava mk4's who knows.

and FireflyPL is correct aboot the jewish life thing plus have you ever had an worried over bearign jewish mother nagging you aboot their son?

lol

and it is actual more then jewish life it is the life of every israeli citizen be they jew, arab, christian, dru, and any other serving in the zionist aggression force.. er i mean the IDF..

lol

[Przezdzieblo 0]

SPQR, full agree about BM42M, I was to fast. But there is a question will Russian tanks addonmakers agree to lower their weapons performance...

One question about DU hit explosive=true: is there any need to do that? That special effect (hm, pirophoric?) probably is not very spectacular for spotter, just few more sparks. The main effect is inside penetrated target...

calm_terror, probably there would be no problem with the newest Russian DU rounds, because Russian do not longer support DU. BM32 probably was only DU projectile in Russian tanks loading carousels.

Quality of round is factor that is hard to simulate. Do you have any easy to see (so: WWW) sources about estimates of Syria or Egypt rounds quality?

Despite of lower performance of shorter Russian rounds there must be remembered differences between methods of penetration estimates on West (f.e. if 50% of rounds penetrate 500 mm RHA, it is said that round penetrate 500 mm RHA) and East (f.e. 80% must penetrate 500 mm RHA to be said that round penetrate 500 mm RHA) and fast deceleration of shorter and not so thin rounds - another thing hard to simulate in OFP.

I do not thing that sloped plates could help much against high density DU or tungsten rounds...

About IEDs which KOed Merkavas - almost sure it was just a pile of explosives, not shaped charges. Tanks where destroyed by impact and inertion of masses inside (f.e. engine pack), crew killed from quake or smashed under turret when it blow into air - probably there was no ammo explosion.

The only way to made a tank invulnerable for such an attack is to make it much more heavier, that even 100 kg would not throw turret and blow engine off hull... so there is no way.

[SPQR 0]

SPQR, full agree about BM42M, I was to fast. But there is a question will Russian tanks addonmakers agree to lower their weapons performance...

One question about DU hit explosive=true: is there any need to do that? That special effect (hm, pirophoric?) probably is not very spectacular for spotter, just few more sparks. The main effect is inside penetrated target...

Lower weapons performances ? i didn't mean that. For my test-T80V I used the estimated figures (from sauron's site) rather than certified ones, and considered theses figures as if they were fired at 2 km..

BM42M =>

630mm (600-650mm, then better than 625 ) at 2km gives 680mm at 1km (my chosen average engagement range) x1.35 would give us 918 direct damage points.

About the DU, it's a mean to visually differenciate DU and non-DU. Also, the pyro-effect is limited, and dangerous for too near infantrymen :

For a 120mm DU shell, currently => 12 indirect damage points at a 1.5 meters radius.

The major effect against armor would be seen in the direct damage point as DU shells use to be 10-20% more effective (self-edging effect). Against the crew, witout scripting, I have no idea, and I'm not found of addons with tons of scripts (like addons to be easily played in MP coop games ).

[calm_terror 0]

well egypt tungsen rounds are veyr high quality they are made the US. i forget their name but it is this long title.

syria's are the same as iraqs home made rounds baed ont he russian rounds.

i am sure there is some sites aboot the quality of ammo used.

i did find once an good site aboot russian tank ammos

this one

soem very good info.

I might look later for info on iraqi and syria ammo.

but anytihng made out side russia was usually pretty poor.

like romainin rpg-7's were very veyr poor compared to the higher standard russian and czech.. and iraqi KE rounds were completely crap compared to the russian standard.

if i can find some info on it i will post it

[TermiPete 0]

Hi everybody

SPQR -

* I like the look of your system! It certainly seems to deal with the core issues and factor in mass into base armour/HP for light AFVs and early MBTs. From my quick testing with LoBo using high structural figures will round out the equation. What we need to do is produce a couple of units configed in this way to do some testing.

First - a couple of units for basic testing (conversions of BIS units perhaps, such as Whis posted before)

Second - I suggest that one of us edits Kuriyami's EECP config to be consistent with our emerging picture and a bunch of us give it a try!!

Przezdzieblo -

* I have compared the M1A2 SEP with the T90 as this is the sort of thing people are doing / testing in OFP - putting up a T64 against a M1A2 SEP seems a little David and Goliath. The BM42 doesn't really rate against the BM42M or BM32.

* The issue of overpowered infantry AT will be minimised as much as *possible* hopefully by going with CE base values and using a high structure value.

* Add-on / value information - I have been compiling an Excel spreadsheet with this information in it. This is a work in progress but has a lot of info that you may find interesting. Let me know if you want a copy as it stands now and i can post it to a download location.

* armoured combat summary I completely agree with:

- standard KE rounds (as BM32/42, M829 up to A1 version, OFL120E2, even DM53) should not KO high-end enemy tank with one hit - and force crew to bail out after multiply hits

- the newest KE round (BM42M, M829A3, PROCIPAC etc.) should KO enemy tanks with one hit, but without destroying vehicle, only forcing crew to bail out

- the newest CE rounds and ATGMs should not KO enemy tanks (except older vehicles) with one hit

- ATGMs that attacks from above should KO enemy tank even with one hit (so I think there must be some + modificator for Javelins, Bills etc.)

Does anyone have the full config.cpp with vehicle class info from the RHS T64 and T55s?

TP

[whisper 0]

I've T-64, need your e-mail to send it ;)

[calm_terror 0]

that link i posted of sig configs actual had the rhs t55 in it.

since they are actual tagged with "sig_"

[TermiPete 0]

Hi

CT - the config.cpp for each RHS pbo is a paltry 490b like this:

class CfgPatches

{

class RHS_T55Models

{

units[]={};

weapons[]={};

requiredVersion=1.91;

};

};

!

Otherwise file has been v. useful :0

TP

[whisper 0]

Check the config for scripts pbo ;) It was there for t-64

[TermiPete 0]

Aha! Doh  

I'll get these into the spreadsheet.

[calm_terror 0]

ok rhs configs

RHS config

[Przezdzieblo 0]

TermiPete

Ad "Add-on / value information" - this is for people who understand what they see. I supposed that sumary would be helpful for addonmakers. Now, after I opened (almost for the first time) RHS configs I found it more complicated than I thought before. So it is up to addonmakers (who are interested in this thread of common armour values system) if they are interested in that summary, would it help, or they prefer fight with numbers alone  

So I opened those config file and saw many dead people... I suppose important values are f.e.:

Quote[/b] ] class SIG_T64bV:T80

{

scope=2;

side=0;

vehicleClass="$STR_RHS_VHCL_Armored";

DisplayName="T-64BV";

nameSound="tank";

laserscanner=0;

laserscanrange=0;

irscanner=1;

accuracy=0.95;

crew="RHS_Cr1";

armor=560;

armorStructural=2.0;

hiddenSelections[]={"r1","r2","r3","w1","w2","w3"

,"decal","gvard","nav"};

armorHull=0.96;

armorTurret=1;

armorGun=0.6;

armorEngine=0.8;

armorLights=0.4;

armorTracks=0.6;

[This is part of RHS T64 config file, all right reserved, all credits deserved]

If move this and remaied configs to one Excel table, it would be rather big

Now I believe that RHS developers choosed armour vs KE value, which make those addons "a little" inferior to f.e. latest INQ tanks. Of course it would be normal that M1A2 is better protected and have more firepower than T64B, but in this case there are major config differences which in ideal world of CAVS would not be (both tanks are vehicles of combined laminated armours and ERA era, so this is important to simulate difference between KE and CE protection level). I suppose that without increasing HP number only those mentioned before "magic" Structure value might help to balance those addons...    

Still don`t understand much and even I am interested in some strange values (laserscanner? laserscanrange? interesting, =1 increasing accuracy? or it`s laser tracker for LGBs?), I would not ask here. The more important thing is what to do now. We got some ideas, there are still (I hope) some researches... Presence of people from Frenchpoint, Lost Brothers and Operation Northstar gives some hopes to spread those ideas (and make some system), but CAVS need more (newborn monster that is always hungry).

[calm_terror 0]

laserscan stuff just means it will look and lock onto lasered targets from like an blackop with an LD. etc. and for some reason there is also things in configs that do nothing because BIS was to rushed or lazy to make them work.

the irscan means it will scan in the ir wich is actual just radar in ofp. but for some reason BIS called it IR.

the actual increasign the accurcy of the rounds falls into the ammo itself and not the armour. you cna limit the "ir" range of an tank tho so it can not really "see" past 1km the max usable range is liek 4km's and even then the ammo falls short evne missiles. as i tried to make the lost brothers apache enage and use hellfires out to the normal range of 4km's and the missile travels out aboot 2.5 to 3km's and explodes before reaching the target. even tho the range set for the ammo and helo was out to like 8km's or something. and of course the max visual range in ofp is 5km's and i don't know anyone who actually runs at that..

for the most part you have to jsut test each config value thing to see if it really does anything

[shinRaiden 0]

As there is a lot of code that is not applicable to armor or ammo in the configs, I've found that it can be helpful to replace the values with variables defined in an include file. That way, you can quickly scan and correlate values across many components more easily.

There are two ways to automate this, you can either #include out the values, or redirect them through variables.

For example, change this block of code

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

armor=560;

armorStructural=2.0;

to #include it out you would replace that section with

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

#include "path\includefile.hpp"

and in that file you would have

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

armor=560;

armorStructural=2.0;

The other option is to replace the values with variables and reorganize the management in an #include'd define file

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

#include "path\IncludeDefsFile.hpp"

class mytank : tank

{

armor=MyTankArmor;

armorStructural=MyTankArmorStructural;

};

and in the IncludeDefsFile.hpp you would have

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

// armor

#define bisM1A1armor value

#define MyTankArmor 560

//ArmorStructural

#define bisM1A1armor value

#define MyTankArmorStructural 2.0

[calm_terror 0]

ick i hate those include files it is such an bitch to find the thing you need to change.. i prefer all in 1 config.

[shinRaiden 0]

For 35K lines of code? Change control is hard enough with 300, it's a nightmare with 35K and fingers constantly in the mess here.

I just split the main config into root classes, then split those into main groups like tanks and planes, then split those into sides. That way if you want to touch just the M1A1, it's real easy to find, and you can also look at the definitions in the All, LandVehicle, Tank, and M1A1 classes all at the same time quicker and easier.

[DKM Jaguar 0]

Hmm sorry to join this thread so late, I know it has progressed past the "wow what an amazing idea" phase.. but..

Wow! What an amazing idea! It is about time a standard was developed for armour. At DKM it is well known we chose to balance our stuff against BIS, simply becuase at the time no one else was using any kind of values which were shared by anyone else..

Now it seems other teams such as INQ and kinghomer are balancing their units against RHS's stuff, which has always been the benchmark for "real" values so if this level becomes more widley used then that's great; no one wants to release addons which can only be used to fight units from 1 other team.

As I only recently began making addons myself, (infact my frist is not released yet) this has never been a real issue for me before, but with the ADATS looming, this has crossed my mind many times. The original ADATS was critised for being over-powerful, as it was set to "real" values, but if all addons from now on are going to be to these same values, there is little point in me changing them to be balanced with BIS. Already having fun blowing up RHS's T55's with the new ADATS (and not that peice of utter crap I showed a few screens of a few weeks ago either.)

I say Good idea.

BTW sorry for the pretty useless post, I just wanted to add some support.  

[calm_terror 0]

i think one problem with air defence systems is most people make them 100% hit. i know the problem with that one russian air defence system dkm made awhile ago was the scripting made it impossible to even target by ground units and it lagged like an mofo.

but that is not the point. for air defence systems they need to be less then perfect and not hit their target 100% of the time since true ecm systems are not in ofp.

[whisper 0]

As far as Anti-Aircraft goes, real numbers are sometimes hard to put in-game.

This is OT, but way too often, AA missiles are way too fast, making them a direct hit, bullet-like weapon. OTOH it's often not possible to avoid this. OFPEC is down, but I made some tests on this and posted results on OFPEC forum somewhere.

[TermiPete 0]

Hi again everybody!

Przezdzieblo

* i know this stuff is a bit of rocket science and will principally be of use to add-on makers, but that is just fine. They are the principal *direct* audience for the project, but everyone can learn something useful by increasing their understanding of how the game works.

* I'm sure we can endeavour to include some information on what the various config parameters mean

CT

* some excellent information about range limitations

shinRaiden

* a useful tip re include files - perhaps we can separate the cfgvehicle section of the 'CAVS EECP' out to ease editing

DKM Jaguar

* great to see you come onboard and voice your support - I did have DKM classed as 'BIS diehards' but I am very happy to be wrong about this!

* RHS / Sigma-6 system is good and my preferred existing system, but we can't help thinking that CE weapons are disproportionately effective against their KE armour values, and modern MBTs are still too prone to fireballing

* Your post is not useless - voiced support (especially from a representative of a highly respected add-on team) for a CAVS project is all-important!!!

CT & Whis

* Anti-aircraft values can be discussed as we WILL need to address this so it is not off-topic -but intially we need to focus on armoured combat and AT weapons.

MOVING FORWARD . . .

* does anyone have any further ideas about tweaking SPQR's proposed system? I'd like to get on with testing!

* I'm going to post up a (really crap) site featuring information on MAAM and CAVS - my (messy) spreadsheet will be available off it too. What sort of form do you want a CAVS site to take? Does anyone want to provide any input/contribution? Should we look to get a space on OFPEC? Open to ideas on this.

On a detail note, I'm just making a test Bradley config and I've always noticed that OFP vehicles with 25mm/30mm chainguns and auto-cannons tend to have very low fire rates - the std setting for a M25 Bushmaster is 200RPM which gives it a lot of potency. When I was working on an NZ army LAV III configuration I used 200RPM and wow- it turned into an utterly lethal BMP killer or suppresive weapon.

TP

[DKM Jaguar 0]

I do not think it is so offtopic, as it is regarding values and would need to be discussed if the initiative encompases missile systems as well.

Unfortunatly it is true that real life values for missile speeds are too fast for ofp. This is one of the reasons real values are not perfect. This is the same with most fast jet addons too, but this means that missiles need to be fast to catch up with the jets, which means they slaughter helicopters.. it's not really solvable. Even though I have heard the ADATS has a very high success rate, I will be looking to make it inaccurate for some percentage of shots fired. As it is, fireing on the move is almost unthinkable.

Now this IS offtopic: The tunguska was made to be highly accurate because of the Fast jet addons at the time with flares and other countermeasures which were seemingly made with invincibility in mind. It also looks like the people who use these addons in general want an air defence not worth talking about. Also, the lag issue is being adressed.

edit: termipete posted while I was typing..

So far I have not been able to talk to the rest of the team, but I for one am in support, and I expect there will be two sets for each addon. BIS balanced ones and RHS/Sig balanced ones. That should satisfy both camps.

[TermiPete 0]

Jaguar - is the DKM site down? Can't seem to get to it currently . . .

[DKM Jaguar 0]

No one is sure what is up with it at the moment. The entire server seems to be down. I'm sure someone is working to fix it..

BTW what's up with this thread? Posts which were made before my last one are named as the latest ones...