Common Armour Values System

[Taconic 0]

I'm still working my way through the thread, but....

Thinking in left field for a moment, one potential solution to the BIS unit compatibility issue is the use of Kuriyamis' EECP (or a CAVS-ratified version thereof) as a base for non-complete conversion addons/mods. This would(should?) be pretty straightforward for a config-monkey like me to sort.

I'd be more than happy to support an initiative like this.

However, one concern that I have about a system like this would be balance (not that this problem doesn't already exist.) While I feel that realism is of the utmost importance, a realistic balance between sides must be achieved since people do play OFP for fun, after all.

In any case, the biggest issue in my mind is Russian AT weaponry. Namely, the fact that there is not a lot of it available. There are RPG-7s and RPG-16s in wide use, and I think there are a couple of RPG-18s and 22s.

There is a huge disparity in the penetration power of AT weapons available for the US and Russia and OFP. As I recall, the Javelin can plow through 600+mm RHA... that's a good ~200mm more than the Russian AT weapons available for OFP. This sort of presents a problem in the OFP world because, unlike the real world, the Russians don't really have any effective way to combat opfor armor while dismounted, be it with something heavy like a Kornet or even just knocking out an M1's tracks with a PG-7.

I've had to confront this problem multiple times with EECP. I use Sigma's values for armor and weaponry, but the simple fact of the matter is that there's a huge disparity between the power of US and Russian weapons in the game. There's also the fact that none of the man portable AT weapons (that I'm aware of) in OFP have been standardized to Sigma's values, so that has made things a real headache for me to deal with.

Any thoughts here?

I think that a possible balanced solution would be to create heavy duty man-portable and deployable ATGM platforms for the US and Russians... A TOW that could be broken down for the US and a Kornet for the Russians.

Of course, something like that presents several problems

1: I don't even know if it's practical. I have no idea how long such things take to deploy in the field. If you can't plop them down and fire with them within a minute, they'd be useless in this context.

2: It would be difficult to make the AI use such things effectively.

3: The models may not exist (I know a TOW does... not sure about the Kornet.)

I don't know. It's just a thought, and not a very well thought out one at that.

Realistic armor and heavy weapons values are great, but my concern is deficiencies in the tools that are currently available to infantry in OFP might actually make a realistic armor values on tanks unrealistic in the fact that infantry would have a hell of a time in dealing with them.

In any event, I'm more than willing to switch to a new realistic standard for armor and whatnot in my config if it proves superior to Sigma's. What I've read so far in this thread sounds promising. I guess I'll read the rest of it now (hopefully I don't find what I've just spent all this time writing has already been discussed. )

[TermiPete 0]

Great to hear

Re Infantry AT weapons, i am not so concerned here (doesn't mean i'm not wrong, just not concerned :P ).

Sigma's values are KE-based and thus for modern MBT low compared to their CE protection. All the infantry AT weapons are CE and as a result are MORE proportionately effective against Sigma-style armour figures than they should be. Look to the Lost Brothers system with CE-based figures, high armourstructural figures and JAM RPGs for some idea of how a realism-focused system can work.

AFAIK, BIS AT weapon damage is based around inflated real CE damage (about 1.66 X real penetration ) - a BIS LAW for example has a damage value of 500 but in RL has penetration of circa 300mm.

I admit i do need to look into this further - including JAM RPG / AT4 damage!

TP

[SM_Azazel 0]

the JAM rpg and JAM at4 are the same damage reguardless of type. except air wich is 100 the others are 500 i beleive

[whisper 0]

As OFPEC is up again, here's a copy/paste of my post regarding AA missiles there.

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

I'm also currently coding a SAM system, with great difficulties too.

High speed missiles have hard time hitting targets, unless you give them even higher speed so that they can point at target, shoot and be directly on target, in which case they have a chance to hit.

In the range you are talking about (Mach 2-3), missiles misse very often.

At lower speed, everything is fine, provided you give them correct parameters :

AFAIK, maxSpeed has no effect on the missile behaviour, it is just a reminder in the config.cpp.

Flight profile will be determined by :

thrust

thrustTime

initSpeed (I'm having issues with initSpeed on missiles)

sideAirFriction

The BIS commented config give a formula to calculate the correct thrust value when you know the maxSpeed and thrustTime :

thrust=maxSpeed*0.7*thrustTime

I couldn't get any correct result with this formula, which seems very strange to me, bc thrust is proportionnal to thrustTime, the more time, the more thrust you give, the more the missile accelerate, and result are wrong.

I got better results with this formula :

thrust=maxSpeed*1.125/thrustTime

You'll have to take initSpeed in consideration for a correct use, which would theorically give :

thrust=(maxSpeed - initSpeed)*1.125/thrustTime

I couldn't have initSpeed set correctly for missiles, so I could not confirm that.

With that, the missile accelerate up to maxSpeed, then engine stop, and it decelerate at a rate depending on sideAirFriction (sideAirFriction of around 0.01 seems correct for me).

The second issue is the flight path calculation, which makes the missile miss often.

The 2 parameters I found had big impact on it are

maneuvrability

simulationStep

Missiles at around Mach 1/Mach 2 require maneuvrability to be raised up to 30-50, so that they can turn sharply enough to catch the target in case the target changes its trajectory at the end of the missile flight path. But, from what I've understood, simulationStep describe the time between 2 path calculation by the game, so if you give the missile big maneuvrability while keeping normal simulationStep, there is not enough calculation, and it "overcalculate" lead angle. The missile then makes big turn (a bit like "turn left!"..."oops, too much left, turn right!"..."oops, too much right, turn left!") and completely miss the target. So you need to lower simulationStep so that calculation are made often enough. For a maneuvrability of 25, I found a simulationStep of 0.001 to be correct, the missile will begin with big turns, but then will go straight at target. This creates a minimal range, at which you can't hit target anymore. Real missiles have minimal range of engagement too, so that's not a big deal.

But, and you have encountered the problem, when raising the speed, raising maneuvrability and lowering simulationStep doesn't work anymore, if you raise maneuvrability enough for the missile to catch target, the missile goes completely wrong when fired.

So you need to keep maneuvrability to around 40, and the missile will always near miss.

So you need some proximity fuze.

AFAIK, there is no way of retrieving the target of a locked ammunition. I tried to use "nearestObject" all along the missile flight path to catch air units along the trajectory, but "nearestObject" requires exact class name, no meta-class (like "Air" or "Helicopter") works. Perhaps the class "All" works.

I don't see any correct way to do it IN AN ADDON. It is very feasible in a mission, but addons has no knowing of installed units in missions.

Perhaps the missile has a "knowsAbout" list (that would be weird Wow! ), or... well, I don't know.

DKM team is currently working on a proximity fuze to update their 2S6, and I bet they have found the solution

BTW, how do you detonate a flying missile?

Whis'

Since then, I've seen how DKM made their prox fuze, nice job Didn't know the old style nearestObject syntax was still functionnal.

And I confirm parameter "initSpeed" has no impact on ammo using "shotMissile" simulation type (so any missile starts near 0 m/s, very, very frustrating for heavy missile type with cruise engine made to keep their speed, not accelerate them. You can't make them start fast, so you either thrust them too shortly compared to real life, not enough visible smoke, or you give them too much max speed. Otherwise they don't accelerate enough and end in the ground).

[Przezdzieblo 0]

DKM Jaguar

First a little OT: IMHO all gun radar guided AA systems are extremaly dangerous for everything flying. Probably jammers give planes and helis a chance against older AA systems, as Shilkas, but new ones, as Tunguska, would tear appart everything in range of it`s guns.

That is why after Kosovo Americans use more smart ammo and fly above altitude, where AA guns and portable AA missiles can get it.

So great performance of Tunguskas or Adats against modern flying objects is realistic - now AA systems ahead, waiting for better countermeasures. Of course if someone makes model of future heli (as DKMs Commanche) or plane he could add some jammers making it less vulnerable.

In OFP, when the most of fights are at range (or altitude) less than 1.5 km, planes have problem... but it is more realistic than one Cobra destroying 5 Shilkas in one mission, because live player was faster in targeting and fire than AI.

Kurayami

IMHO balance in OFP MP is a task for missionmaker, not addonmaker. Symmetry is foe of art

OTOH see that Russian can have some advantages because of OFP armour system (3 hits of more lethal weapon could make more dammages than one hit of powerfull missile). Many West AT portable weapons are, like LAW, can fire once or their ammo is heavy and there is no vacant slots for more (f.e. Javelin). So that weapons can fire once and the most of Russian RPGs can fire many times, making more dammages and could be used against infantry or light vehicles (in comparison shooting a Jav against jeep is a little, erm, overkill).

Difference between East and West weapons is IMHO one more thing that makes (or could make) OFP interesting. Russian still don`t have operable top-attack ATGM, but the newest of their tanks have actve protections systems that Americans have not. So still there is a chance to find a balance in many kind of effective weapons and countermeasures, and it is way better for me than makes everything values and act the same.

TermiPete

I like the way LoBo team made their tanks high armoured against HEATs, but long firefights between tanks with multiple hits is not so good for me. There is still need to find a good balance (one more good balance) between amour and round values.

Maybe some values to think about.

There is PT-91 Twardy MBT. Polish MBT. It is rather deep (but there are deeper) modification of T72M1, included better protection because of ERA (one-layer ERAWA-1 and two-layers ERAWA-2 with increased performance agains tandem warheads).

Lets compare aprox. armour values:

T72M1

vs KE

turret: 250-380 glacis: 400

vs CE

turret: 320-490 glacis: 490

PT-91

vs KE

turret: ~500 glacis: ~500 (it means that there is low probability that KE round with penetration ratio about 500 mm RHAe would deal with armour)

vs CE

turret: ~800 glacis: ~800 (it means that there is low probability that CE round with penetration ratio about 800 mm RHAe +ERA would deal with this armour)

Do you have any ideas how in this case values should look like?

I like the move here

[SM_Azazel 0]

one thing aboot russian at weapons vs NATO. is that NATO weapons are very very expensive and usually very large and for the most part single shot and actually take some skill to set up aim and fire etc. now russian at weapons liek the rpg series are cheap, semi light reloadable, heavily deployed(ie more then 2 per squad) and does not require alot of training for skill, tho to actual hit the correct spot and hit moving armour does but for the most part you just point and shoot.

they are easy to transport fast and easy to set up.

remember you get enough rpg's firing you will destory anything. and with some training you can teach to aim for the roof or rear of most tanks.

so there is actually an balance.. you just have to think aboot it.

now as for aa systems in an game like this where the whole air combat is so wacked and planes can't do crap above 500m(ai) and AA systems as guns are completely effective IE there is no jammer that actually works. there is that "IR" jammer from DKM but that doesn't really work all that well. and there is the fact OFP lacks an real ECM and electronic warfare engine. like some ec-130, E-101 etc(I forget all the numbers for the others) so guns systems need to have something of an random miss or HD even if they are perfect in real life.

[stevevcb 3]

Also, especially in Cold War scenarios, the Russians typically have numerical superiority. In fact, the technological disparity between the Sovbloc and NATO was down to the Soviet doctrine of assault en masse. NATO countered this with technologically superior equipment that would be able to engage at longer ranges and with a greater chance of a kill. For example, while both sides fielded attack helicopters during the Cold War, NATO's were geared up towards knocking out tanks whilst their Soviet counterparts such as the Hind were basically flying artillery parks, designed to saturate the enemy with rockets. But anyway, I'm rambling.

I say, keep the values as realistic as possible. Making Eastern Tank D a match for Western Tank F when the real thing would get KO'd before the paint was dry on it is like making a WWII mod where the Germans have eight-shot semi-automatic Kar 98s because the real thing couldn't fire as fast and had a smaller magazine than the Garand.

[SM_Azazel 0]

or like making an m4a1 sherman equal to an panzer or tiger tank.

[Taconic 0]

Kurayami

IMHO balance in OFP MP is a task for missionmaker, not addonmaker. Symmetry is foe of art

I'm not suggesting that realism be sacrificed for balance or anything. I completely agree that balance should be left up to the mission maker.

I'm just saying that I think that AT weaponry values should play just as large (if not larger) a part of a CAVS initiative as the actual armor values.

[TermiPete 0]

WGL has always impressed me with its focus on realism.

I've just had a look in the WGL mod and found that all the vehicle and weapon configs are stored in the add-on PBOs and are perfectly accessible.

I've added this information to my spreadsheet and will publish it (and the crap site) tonight.

These are my findings re: WGL:

* MBT HEAT rounds are based on real penetration

* MBT Sabot rounds are based on real penetration

* MBT armour is based on vs KE protecton (RHA)

* Infantry AT weapons use real penetration values (eg LAW=300, RPG22=390)

* ATGMs all seem to be wound down somewhat from real penetration - the amount varies

* Light AFVs mainly seem to have armor of 2 x KE protection (eg M113 armor 80 - real A1/A2 armor is 44mm, BMP1 has armour 45 - real armor is 23mm)

* ArmorStructural is used this way: 1 for soft-skin, 1.5 for lightly armoured vehicles, 2 for MBT-style armor and 2.75 for advanced composite

And it plays well . . . but . . .

* I still noticed that an M1 crew bailed out after one set of tracks was destroyed. Seems too early to me.

* as advanced "vs CE" armour protection is in no way accounted for, HEAT rounds, ATGMs and AT weapons are more potent against modern MBTs (and some APCs such as ERA-equipped warrior/Bradley) than in reality.

Certainly provides some food for thought.

It is interesting that both WGL and Sigma (who have both spent a lot of time looking at OFP armoured combat) both arrived at the conclusion of using vs. KE armour protection values.

Calm_Terror - how did you arrive at the armorstructural=16 value on your MBTs?

Kurayami, SM_Azazel, Przezdzieblo - re AT Weapons

To answer the question of AT weapons - this is difficult to address within CAVS but DOES need to be. With our proposed use of vs CE base armour values there is every reason to want realistic vs. CE penetration values on AT weapons. This is easy to do within CAVS/EECP config but in terms of general add-ons I'm not too sure how to approach this - with BIS AT weapons having CE pen X 1.66!!! Maybe MAAM can address this.

Przezdzieblo - re PT91 Twardy

Pretty straightforward -

* T72M1 has base armor 490

* PT91 has base armor 800

So your PT91 has a much better chance of handling RPG attacks - just like it should!.

TP

[TermiPete 0]

In case anybody is wondering . . .

I'm already well underway with adding preliminary CAVS numbers into a modified EECP 0.44 config. I've also got the key info from WGL in the spreadsheet - so I'll have something ready for testing soon.

I'm thinking about starting the ammo definition PBO as part of this, as I have been modifying armour values and AT weapons values principally so far.

TP

[Przezdzieblo 0]

More ideas

Still waiting for some researches results, but lets say that now there are two ways to simulate tanks vs projectiles performance: by increasing HP or `structure` values.

We have few armour types that probably could be included in CAVS:

-spaced armour

-laminated armour

-1st generation ERA

-1.5 generation ERA

-2nd generation ERA

spaced armour

It gives reduced protection against KE and better against HEATs, f.e. a plate protecting tank hull sometimes gives even 300 mm RHA additional protection against old HEAT warhead, but many times less against new ones. But it would be hard to simulate those values, because so big difference in KE and CE values.

laminated armour

Generally, good performance against HEATs and a bit less than KE. But there would be some subclasses:

- 1st generation laminated armour, as Soviet "K" armour, gives aprox. +30-40% of CE protection compared to KE protection, f.e. 335 mm RHAe (vs KE) of T80 gives 420-450 mm RHAe (vs CE)

- Chobham and Chobham-like laminated armour, up to +100% RHAe (vs CE compared to vs KE values)

- Chobham + DU laminated armour, + 50-100% vs KE (comparing M1A1 with M1A2), +70% (if vs CE values compared to vs KE of M1A2; or +300% if M1A2`s vs CE value with M1`s vs KE).

- Chobham 2nd generation (and new laminated armours): probably silimar to Chobham + DU vs KE and better vs CE

1st generation ERA

Low protection against KE and good against CE - up to +50-70% (compared with vs KE values)

f.e. Blazer, Kontakt-1

generation 1+ (or 1.5) ERA

Additional protection against KE rounds, f.e. modified Kontakt-1, Israeli Super Blazer, Polish ERAWA-1

protection level

vs KE +50% (against old rounds)  vs CE +80-100%

2nd generation ERA

More protection against KE round and versus tandem warheads (two layers ERA), f.e. Kontakt-5,

protection level

vs KE +50% vs CE +100%

I do not what to do with Czech/Slovakian Dyna-72 and ERAWA-2. Some of Dyna cells might has two layers, ERAWA-2 has for sure. So those ERAs are probably effective against tandem warheads - and ERAWA-2 also against some of KE rounds.

Anybody knows something about French Brenus (Brennus?) ERA?

Probably there is a chance to simulate those values by modifying HP or `structure` values. In first case just adding some RHAe approximates, f.e. it is believed that against some rounds Russian K-1 ERA gives + 30 mm RHAe vs KE and + 400 mm RHAe vs HEAT; and 2nd gen. K-5 gives + 250 mm RHAe vs KE and + 600 mm RHAe vs CE. All those values are included www webs like http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm

In the second case (`structure`) I believe thing gets more complicated. But maybe those stuff (armour classes) above would help to make some common agreement and idea how to deal with it. Here I see again great idea of changing vs KE values into vs CE...  

So, in very simple example (no maths here):

- RHAe (simulating good, tradicional steel armour)

- spaced armour

- 1st gen. ERA

- 1st generation laminated armour

- 1.5 gen ERA

- Chobham / 2nd gen ERA

- Chobham + DU/Chobham 2 and Chobham 2-like newer laminated armours

Probably all ERAs, even those much sofisticated and new, would have "worse" `structure` value, because explosion of cell would decrease tank combat efficiency (f.e. by dammaging sights, quake etc.). All ERAs but Russian K-5 and newer, which seems more "sight-friendly" than others.

I hope that I would be understood, even with this not the best English ever wrote  

[TermiPete 0]

Without renting a domain name (call me cheap!) here is a link to a page with some basic info and a link to my messy spreadsheet

Operation Flashpoint Standards Initiative

TP

[FireflyPL 0]

Really great site!! I got to read through this stats

[SPQR 0]

Wouah, what a job, like Atlas carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders

Some points of discussion :

- for some tanks, you wrote a fairly inaccurate KE protection level. An exemple would be a better explaining :

The T-55 is said to have a 98 mm (or 100 as you like) front hull armor. This is partially false. 98mm is the thickness of the armor plate at 90° (vertical). But the plate on the T-55 has an angle of 58° (from vertical).

Against a direct shot (far more complicated with low velocity shells fired at long range as they would have a high curve ballistic trajectory), the thickness would be :

- if 0° means horizontal =>

Basic Thickness(mm) / sinus (angle in °) = real thickness to go through

- if 0° means vertical =>

Basic Thickness(mm) / cosinus (angle in °) = real thickness to go through

As a matter of fact, the T-55 has a 98mm front hull armor plate at 58° (from vertical) i.e.

98 mm / cos 58° => 98/0.5299 => 184-185 mm

Moreover, the armor being made of steel, the KE protection level is equal to the CE one.

Another example : BMP-1

Angle reference : vertical = 0°

Front turret armor : 23 mm / 42°

Front upper hull armor : 7 mm / 80°

Front lower hull armor : 19 mm / 57°

which give us, against direct horizontal shots :

Front turret armor : 30.9 mm

Front upper hull armor : 40.3 mm

Front lower hull armor : 34.88 mm

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

An idea to test for ATGMs attacking from above :

Give a x2 direct damage value

Give a x1 to x2 indirect damage value

Give a indirect damage range just low to be able to effect all armor parts of the OFP target tank (hull, gun, turret, tracks and engine)

[Przezdzieblo 0]

Great work, TermiPete!!!

So now the only things CAVS do not have are CAVS addons  

Which team would publish first reconfigurated addon? The closest to CAVS seems to be LoBo tanks - because of vs CE value as base and using of `structure` values. But after tank vs tank battle tests it also seems that KE values are lowered. IMHO `structure` values need some frame that would help addonmakers to give their models right parameters.

So again proposal, this time with some numbers for better example:

-normal, steel armour would be armourstructural=1.0

-1st gen. laminated armour would be 2.0 (as in RHS T64s)

-same laminated armour with additional 1st. gen ERA would be 3.0, with gen. 1.5 ERA =3.5, and 2nd gen. heavy ERA =4.0

-Chobham and others laminated armours would have 4.0-4.5, Chobham 2 =5.0-6.0

This numbers are only unsciencic proposals

Lets say we got Challanger 2 in Iraq variant. We take vs CE value as base armour and armourstructural=4.0 (or more - now I do not remember if the newest Challs have improved Chobham or not). Those tanks have also additional ERA cells (sides, low hull plate), but we count only the best quality armour (front turret) as `structural` and only the highest vs CE value as tank hit points. All aplique spaced or reactive armours would be simulated f.e. in armortracks=... values.

High `structure` values might decrease KE round performance. So probably there would be needed some another modificator than x1.35 proposed by SPQR. There can be also some subdivisions of APFSDS round, f.e. x 1.35 for old ones, x1.40 (number just from air :P) for thinner rounds like DM43, x1.45 for the newest generations of projectiles, + one more bonus if round is DU. There would be some maths here, but it is better than changing all vs CE values.

P.S. Added after lecture of SPopulusQueR`s post:

the only good thing about ATGMs that strike from above is that there are not many With high `structural` values x2 might be not enough... but probably some tests would give right answer.

P.P.S.

OTOH there seem to be needed few more subdivisions for HEATs. I see 3 groups:

-HEATs

-tandem HEATs

-projectiles which attack from above

If first group inflict x1 damage and 3rd x2, what to do with 2nd group of tandem warheads? x1.5 seems to much, so maybe add additional 150-200 mm to RHAe penetration (coz those are estimates of extra protection of some ERA cells) or 15-30%?

Another idea to differ extra crew protection of tanks with separated ammo from men inside:

if tank HP is it`s vs CE protection + some extra points (to let crew bail out and prevent instant explosion) older tanks with ammo near crew and old extinguishers system would have decreased those values, f.e.

T72M1 HP= 490 + lets say 1 x some value (to simulate that fire after hit could easy blow it up)

T55 HP= 210 + lets say 1.25 x same value (coz those tanks seems not so vulnerable to fire as T72s)

T90 HP= 1120 + lets say 1,5 x some value (still ammo near crew but better extinguishers system)

M1A2 HP=1600 + lets say 2 x some value (well protected crew, small probability of dangerous ammo blow)

P.P.P.S.

calm_terror, could you paste part of Merkavas config with all that HP and `structural` values?

[TermiPete 0]

To all (or any? :P )- sorry I am taking so long - but real life is real busy!

PROGRESS:

* I have modified (almost) all the necessary stats in the EECP 0.44 source to reflect out joint thoughts on CAVS.

* I have commented wherever I have implemented CAVS values.

* For Light AFVs I have created armor values using the same methodology as SPQR has proposed for MBTs - this actually seems to work OK and fits with design decisions made by the WGL crew.

With EECP reflecting modern equipment and featuring the M1A2 with its massive vs CE armour - it is a tough nut for sure! But put 2-3 T-72s or T-80s against one and things ain't looking so good for mister M1.

Same thing goes with RPGs - several RPG launchers together will do some damage!

Overall the feel seems quite good.

Who wants to test/check the config?

I think the areas that need some thought are:

1. armorstructural values to get bail-out simulation about right. Maybe Lobo values need to come into play here.

2. the calibre-based calculations for small HE shells like the 25mm HEI-T currently give direct impact damage of 10 and indirect damage of 5 with a range of 2.5 (is this figure radius or diameter?) . . . try it and see what you think.

TP

[SM_Azazel 0]

wich merkava?

there is 3 different ones

[TermiPete 0]

SPQR - if you are still watching this topic (and I hope you are) - where have you drawn your CE/HEAT indirect damage/range formulas from?

One concern I have is whether the AI has the ability to recognise that a HE-FRAG round it has available is a better choice to use against infantry or soft targets rather than a HEAT round with a very focused shaped charge? If the AI can't figure this out, and believes that HEAT = HE then the way we are designing HEAT rounds will unrealistically reduce tank effectiveness against soft targets.

Does anybody have any clues?

Przezdzieblo - Wow you have lot of ideas! I think we need to do some more testing around SPQRs initial ideas and see what issues we hit up against.

I'll stick with these values for armorstructural at the moment:

1 = soft skinned (car)

1.5 = light armor (BMP)

2 = MBT armor (T72m1)

2.75 = modern composite/ERA armor (M1A2)

But I expect these will end up changing.

Here is the key parts of the Merkava Mk4 config:

Quote[/b] ]

armor=1300;

armorStructural=16.0;

class HitEngine {armor=1.5;material=60;name=engine;passThrough=1;};

class HitHull {armor=0.80;material=50;name=hull;passThrough=1;};

class HitTurretFront {armor=1.25;material=51;name=turetf;passThrough=1;};

class HitFHull {armor=1.25;material=50;name=fhull;passThrough=1;};

class HitTurretTop {armor=1;material=51;name=turett;passThrough=1;};

class HitTurretBack {armor=0.80;material=51;name=turetb;passThrough=1;};

class HitGun {armor=1;material=52;name=gun;passThrough=1;};

class HitLTrack {armor=0.6;material=53;name=pasL;passThrough=1;};

class HitRTrack {armor=0.6;material=54;name=pasP;passThrough=1;};

armorHull=0.8;

armorFHull=1.5;

armorTurretTop=1.5;

armorTurretBack=1.5;

armorTurretFront=1.5;

armorGun=3;

armorEngine=1.5;

armorLights=0.4;

armorTracks=0.7;

cost=1500000;

maxSpeed=50;

fuelCapacity=100

camouflage=5

audible=6

accuracy=0.100000;

precision=10

type=1

nightVision="true";

irScanner="true";

irScanRangeMin=5

irScanRange=5000

irScanRangeMax=7000

irScanToEyeFactor=2

irTarget="true";

irScanGround="true";

laserScanner="true";

laserScanRange=7000

[SM_Azazel 0]

the AI will not change ammos the AI will fire SABOT rounds againest infantry. HEAT and HE-Frag or more for the human player to switch or order the switch to..

yeha the merkava mk4 is still using that config.

[TermiPete 0]

SM_Azazel - Thanks for that useful (but disappointing) piece of info.

I take it you are a member of LoBo - how did you guys arrive at the armorstructural values that you have used?

TP

[FireflyPL 0]

Well there is a value in config.cpp named "cost" and I think this value for each weapon causes AI to use low cost weapons against low cost targets like infantry etc. So I think it is possible to do so, that AI would use HE against infantry if this value is set to low cost like i.e. mg.

[Przezdzieblo 0]

TermiPete

Ok, I save those initial values. I tested it on "upgraded" SIG T72 model.

Initial value, HP=600: 1 BIS AT-4/CGustav + 1 BIS RPG/LAW blow it up

1st test, HP= 600, ArmorStructural=2.0: effect almost the same, 1AT-4 + 1 RPG = wreck

Then 2nd test, HP=600, ArmorStructural=6.0: tank survived 1 AT + 4 RPG without much reduced firepower; 5th RPG killed one of the crew and severly dammaged tank, 6th blow it up

There was no diversity of tank parts (coz I still do not have idea how does it works and will changes in config only activate it: probably CAVS when finaly defined needs some idioten-friendly tutorial how to implement it`s ideas into config and model itself). I thing 2nd test proved good simulation of ERA-uparmoured tank against even to powerful BIS AT weapons. Against Suchey or ORCS weapons (with seem to be highly overpowered and can make target upside down) it is not so good, but much more better than in "base" model or than 1st test model.

So ArmorStructural seems to work and now there is question how to differ armour types. There is a chance to simulate many subgrouppes (f.e. Chobham vertical and Chobham sloped, ERA K5, slightly improved K5, Kaktus and others by small increasing ArmorS value; OTOH LoBo "teen" values seems to be too high - 8-10 works fine but 16 it is Ubertank against OFP weapons). But it also seems that KE projectiles, at least from 3 class (the newest), maybe even some older (DM43, M111, BM32 etc.) would need some power bonus to deal with high ArmorS values.

About round type recognition:

I do not know config tricks, but situation is not so bad as it seems. From the newest MBTs probably only Russian use specialised APERS rounds (f.e. AFAIR American are still in "X" stage, Israeli round with darts too, Brits have APFSDS and HESH only; if someone have better data about this and others countries please add a few words). So if armour and infantry is the main opponent at OFP battlefields, base ammo for Russian tanks would be HE-FRAG and APFSDS. HEAT (not in MP variant), however it has some APERS capabilities, it is not the best weapon against both tanks and infantry. If AI could choose between those two (APFSDS/HE - when HE means APERS or HEAT-MP) types, it is ok. East have here an advantage in using tanks against infantry.

The problem appears when we use some "future" stuff, with specialised APERS rounds on Western tanks (+ of course KE rounds of 3rd class, PROCIPAC and another killing needles).

So, does AI differs ammo types (only between those two, AP/HE)???

[SM_Azazel 0]

no the AI does not change ammo types at all unless ordered to.

it will use the first ammo then once that is depleted it uses the next. and so on..

cost has nothign to do with ammo types. it is jsut to assest wich target to engage first. higher cost means higher value target. cost in the ammos just means how much each ammo will cut and resupply trucks ammo supply down. higher cost more the value drops in the resupply. so if you fire an round with 100 cost and then ammo truck has only 75 worth and ammo left. it will be unable to resupply you that ammo type. i tihnk it is to keep semi realistic so you cna set the ammo value of like an sa-6 higher then what an ural could actual carry.. thus not able to supply the ammo..

as for the structure value on the merkava well i set it really high since it is the most reenforced tank in the world and i hate seeing tanks explode after they are hit with tanks around..

since in reality tanks don't always jsut explode and burn after being hit by tank rounds. they are usual disabled thus repairable.

those t55 you see in iraq they where hit over and over or hit with bombs.

but the merkava mk4 is an really heavy tank built to survive major combat.

it was designed and redesigned upgraded etc around combat on the golan againest syrian T-72's. and also to survive urban combat. and most likely also being upgraded to combat egyptian M1A1 and M1A2's. and since israel is one of the few countries that actually tries to keep the crew alive and learn lessons from combat.. also if you don't put the cargo area for troops it can carry like 3 times the ammount of ammo as other tanks..

[Dwarden 1124]

excelent thread ... lot of great info and ideas ... fully supporting well thought out CAVS ...

related to Merkava Mk.3 destroyed by such traps ... ammout of explosives used was enough to END life for any tank in world at that timeframe ...

Mk.4 is impressive piece ...