Vehicle vulnerability.

[Second 0]

I am also very much annoyed by AI habit of getting out of the tank when the tank gets damaged. Especially when the main gun gets damaged. How realistic is the fact that it is a good idea to get out of the tank in the middle of the firefight. Most likely they would try to escape from the battlefield in the tank!

There's psycological explanation for bailing out: Mostly crew of damaged vehicle, which they atleast think, is severly damaged (not fit to fight) will bail out (panicing or then not). Not always, but mostly this is the case.

Targets are usually shot to point of destruction in real life (Crew bailing or vehicle burning). Only after that target is changed to other, or this is atleast expected. And crew knows this, as they are expected to do same thing to their own targets. And in ArmA this applies mostly in same way, damaged vehicle is dead trap to crew. Or at least this can be assumed, forexample: crew don't know that squad fired it's last AT-launcher.

In ArmA there's possibility to repair damaged vehicle instantly... It's kinda dump that AI doesn't know how to use this as advantage, when player can. They don't automaticaly get in vehicle again if it's repaired... Or atleast i haven't noticed that. But i don't mess with vehicles very much anyway (mostly destroy them).

[mr reality 0]

The main problem with the crews bailing out, is that they will continue with the waypoint. Even if it leads them directly into opfor armour. If a crew loses its tank it should stay back from any contact with opfor. The devs don't need to worry about this little problem however, as the survival rate for a crewman is pretty low.

[maddogx 13]

The main problem with the crews bailing out, is that they will continue with the waypoint. Even if it leads them directly into opfor armour. If a crew loses its tank it should stay back from any contact with opfor.  The devs don't need to worry about this little problem however, as the survival rate for a crewman is pretty low.

It is easily possible to check via script whether the crew has disembarked, and then give them new orders.

So yeah, BI really doesn't need to worry about it.

[mr reality 0]

It is easily possible to check via script whether the crew has disembarked, and then give them new orders.

What if during the mission the crew disembarks for a 'briefing', then the vehicle is hit once contact had been made and the crew bails out but the vehicle isn't fully damaged. For a scipting noob this isn't as easy as you make it seem .

[maddogx 13]

It is easily possible to check via script whether the crew has disembarked, and then give them new orders.

What if during the mission the crew disembarks for a 'briefing', then the vehicle is hit once contact had been made and the crew bails out but the vehicle isn't fully damaged. For a scipting noob this isn't as easy as you make it seem   .

Well, there will always be special situations in which one or the other script logic would have to be reworked to accomodate for the situation. It's always trial and error, and "script noobs" can learn from that.

As for your initial issue, the question is, if the crew shouldn't continue on their waypoint after disembarking a disabled vehicle, what else should they do? If BI were to change that part of the AI logic, there would be people complaining that AI crew don't follow their waypoints after disembarking a disabled vehicle.

It's always dependent on the situation. Sometimes the AI do what you want in special situations and sometimes they don't. In the latter case, we have a powerful scripting language at our disposal to make them do what we want.

[mr reality 0]

after disembarking a disabled vehicle,

But that's the problem right there. The crew bails out even if the vehicle is drivable. All it takes for the crew to abandon the vehicle is for the main gun is to get damaged.

[maddogx 13]

after disembarking a disabled vehicle,

But that's the problem right there. The crew bails out even if the vehicle is drivable. All it takes for the crew to abandon the vehicle is for the main gun is to get damaged.

The canFire command is a lot of help there.

[mr reality 0]

The canFire command is a lot of help there.  

I can see how that would come in usefull,(why it isn't implemented in the vehicle config already, puzzles me)

One other problem with that, is that the MBTs in ArmA only take one shot to destroy them from another MBT. So the canfire command is useless for this purpose.

[icebreakr 3101]

Current damage model (beta 5157) is just poor... yesterday enemy stormed our outpost and we had only one M2 cannon... I saw BMP-2 and infantry approaching to the main gate and I immediatelly opened fire on the APC (it wasnt damaged before the encounter). To my suprise (5 sec later) crew bailed out and BMP2 soon exploded. It is known that its crew is protected against AP 12.7mm (.50) rounds?

It has to be the "hitpoint" system, even 5.56 can eventually totally demolish a BMP2 if the gunner is persistent one (or is given a chance). That bug is present since v1.00czech and I think its a serious engine limitation. Hopefully BIS will find a way to fix that.

[max power 21]

The BMP is protected from 12.7 ap from the front 60 degree arc. Its protection actually isn't that great.. it's maneuverability and weapons suite is spectacular tho.

[frederf 0]

I thought ArmA had a very rudimentary penetration system for armor like:

Hit on Abrams

if ( dmg < threshold )

then ( no effect)

else ( damage applied )

[Shadow NX 1]

Havent read the whole topic so i may be forgiven if this was already said:

For me the damage taking qualitys of vehicles is one of the lil things that give me the "somehow this was better in OFP" effect.

In case anyone gets me wrong, ArmA is nice and offers a lot but it isnt even close to how well OFP in its final stadium worked.

Played some custom ArmA yesterday, 2 tanks arrive, 2rpgs fly, two tanks burn... meh

In OFP when Tanks arrived you always knew it gets hairy cause most of them took at least 2-4 rockets so you had to have a pretty secure position to fire at them.

With Helicopters its similar they go down damn fast in ArmA.

But i shouldnt cry over spilled milk... these are some of the things that wont be changed and we gotta live with it ( or mod it ).

[Heatseeker 0]

Havent read the whole topic so i may be forgiven if this was already said:

For me the damage taking qualitys of vehicles is one of the lil things that give me the "somehow this was better in OFP" effect.

In case anyone gets me wrong, ArmA is nice and offers a lot but it isnt even close to how well OFP in its final stadium worked.

Played some custom ArmA yesterday, 2 tanks arrive, 2rpgs fly, two tanks burn... meh

In OFP when Tanks arrived you always knew it gets hairy cause most of them took at least 2-4 rockets so you had to have a pretty secure position to fire at them.

With Helicopters its similar they go down damn fast in ArmA.

But i shouldnt cry over spilled milk... these are some of the things that wont be changed and we gotta live with it ( or mod it ).

Yes, thats the reason behind the topic.

2 RPG's per tank .

But overall i find it not to be much diferent from OPF, the armor and amunition values are diferent but it all behaves about the same (MBT's are much more fragile now).

1 RPG hit (or two), a MG burst = boom! Vehicles always blow up.

I remember that in OPF this explosive result used to be influenced by the amount (or lack) of fuel and ammo, havent tested it in Arma yet.

I believe it could be improved upon with some "tweaks".

[*]Reducing the blast radius of vehicle explosions.

[*]Increasing vehicle armor somewhat (APC's).

[*]Decreasing the effective range of rocket launchers.

[*]Randomising vehicle explosions?*

*Should be possible to "kill" a vehicle without having it explode every single time.

It would improve gameplay .

[Second 0]

Definedly no change to AT-laucher's shootable range for AI! That would result armored vehicle supermazy expacely if armored vehicle is in hands of player. I find AI to be easy opponent against player controlled vehicle even now. 300 meters is absolute minimum, below that and game balance (gamefun-balance and realism-balance) would suffer greatly.

There's few bad things with degreased shooting range:

1. AI would issue engage orders more easily -> dead AT-guy

2. AI needs to get closer to be able to shoot target -> dead AT-guy

3. Accuravy of At-weapons is more realistic now than if they get degreased. I have statictics for RPG-7 and it's combat accuracy (Afganistan and some other warzones)... If AI's skill level (via mission editor) is set to high it should be quite dangerous opponent, who relatively easily can score hits from long ranges, just like experienced AT-guy. Rookies in ArmA can't score hits very easily, missing their target from about 200-300 meters constantly. These with 0.5 skill-level in my user configs.

Adjustable Skill levels via config causes problems, as now no-one is complitely satisfied. I like their low accuracy at low editor's skill levels, but i hate that they waste their ammos to targets that clearly aren't threat anymore.

Armorvalues themselves needs tweaking as lauchers aren't the only problem... I atleast see more frusturation in here to fact that small uneffective weapons can defeat vehicles which they in reality or for game balance shouldn't, atleast that easily. Forexample: IRL .50 cal machinegun can take out BMP-2 from frontal direction, if gunner gets lucky (30 mm AP-round can pierce T-72M1's front armor of turret. I've seen results: Ugly), but that can be considered being lucky and mostly would just get MG-gunner killed.

[Heatseeker 0]

If 300M are the minimum what would be the max, half a KM+?

From my experience M113's, Stryker's, BMP's, etc dont live for long...

I can pull some amazing at4/rpg shots, its satisfying but not much of a thrill to go hunting armor when we can just sit back and snipe it .

[Second 0]

If 300M are the minimum what would be the max, half a KM+?

From my experience M113's, Stryker's, BMP's, etc dont live for long...

I can pull some amazing at4/rpg shots, its satisfying but not much of a thrill to go hunting armor when we can just sit back and snipe it .

And why don't APC's live for long? Because they get hit and they go "BOOM" too easily not only by AT-launchers but almost all other weapons. I quess two M203 frag-grenades is enough for BMP crew. RPG might be to powerful (as armor vaules are too low), but not too accurate and long distance carrying.

But honestly: way APCs are used in ArmA by AI or mission designers in some cases wouldn't live for long anyway. When APC is used properly (infantry between it and possible location of enemy AT) it is tough little as*hole. There should be default routine that APC is issued stay back order by AI leader.

Yes you can snipe with AT-weapon (as should), but the thing is that vehicle should endure more. Only bad thing with At-launchers is that their trajectory is too straight, there's no skill or experience involved in hitting targets. Distance measurement, understanding the sights (well, not much to be understand in both sights) etc...

[Second 0]

Oh damn.

Seems that i have read wrong sources

Slat armor works or is expected to work bit differently than i thought. It's expected to deform warhead on impact to slat so that it duds (plaintiff1 was right i'd quess, my apoligies), if warhead explodes then slats don't work as well. Finally got my hands on quite solid info, "lessons learned department" or something like that.

I also missread that PRG-7 tradoc at start. I was impression that net it mentions uses electricity of it's own, when actually it doesn't. So i was wrong in that too (stupid english! ). Dang. What can i say... Sorry again.

And i think i have another explanation why RPG-7's grenade gains more effect at range. Grenade flies too fast at start: Fuze won't set off the warhead soon enough so warhead explodes too close to armor and "plasma"-jet don't magane to form to optimal shape. This "theory" seems to gain more support than spinning-"theory".