Penetration Values/Area specific damage.

[Pathy 0]

This would be one i'd love to see for vehicles at the least.

That rather than a "hit" value all weapons have a penetration value (measured in mm of penetration), and then a second value determining the joules of damage they actually deliver. Maybe also a 3rd and 4th value, max and min penetration, joules of damage, and a range multiplier. Armour thickness values could then be defined either on the model or on the config (via selections). Critical components could also be defined (engine, fuel tank, ammo storage, etc).

With OFP and ArmA weapons it's just one generic value for damage, plus an area of effect value. We have a primitive system of damage on vehicles. Fire at a tank enough times with a rifle and you'll kill it, i believe.

Changing the way it's done, would mean that say, HE rounds would bounce off a tanks armour, whilst AP rounds perhaps would pass entirely through a truck, not damaging any critical parts on the way through. It'd mean when aiming at a tank with your shoulder launched, rather than shooting it 3 times wherever, before it cooks, you actually have to think where the weakspots in the armour are and where the critical components and crew are.

It'd mean tanks could be tracked, degunned, etc, in a much more realistic manner.

[FrostwolfIV 0]

This is an effective suggestion, and would definitely improve gameplay, but you have to remember, there are some limits to what the BIS team can do. First, CPU power. You don't want to create a great game, but only have the top line computers be able to play it. Second, the size of the development team. This is obvious, but the less people, the less able to be done by a deadline, and if they try to put to many things in, they will have to hold back the release, and "Casual" gamers will move on, and less people buy the game... you see where I'm going with this. There are many others, but I'm sure you'll think them up. Anyways, to conclude my idea, I would love to see this, but if they don't, it won't be a total game breaker.

[mrj-fin 0]

This is an effective suggestion, and would definitely improve gameplay, but you have to remember, there are some limits to what the BIS team can do. First, CPU power. You don't want to create a great game, but only have the top line computers be able to play it. Second, the size of the development team. This is obvious, but the less people, the less able to be done by a deadline, and if they try to put to many things in, they will have to hold back the release, and "Casual" gamers will move on, and less people buy the game... you see where I'm going with this. There are many others, but I'm sure you'll think them up. Anyways, to conclude my idea, I would love to see this, but if they don't, it won't be a total game breaker.

The real question of their developer team small size affect to quality of game is critical in so many questions of new features..

I can make free job for them if they wanna I have already spent all my free time to marketing this game to some new public wihtout any information this game without any paid. They need mainly need to do engine the rest will come from modders I hope so. If I could decide how many coders I would have if i would have to do a game I would firstly get some 100-200 programmer heavy knowledge about multi processor coding then I would get all military books and some 10 military expert to tell to me that everything is alright. After that when the basic engine is ready whit some elements i would give that to test every member of BIS forums and I would fill everyones wishes about game. I hope however good luck to BIS whit their own way to make it.

[Pathy 0]

Frostwolf I understand what you're saying and you are of course right, these things must be considered, and i am well aware of the limits developers may face. However, this is something i've seen done in existing games to varying degrees, from the Close Combat Series, to World War 2 Online, to TacOps, to Theatre of War (perhaps the greatest example of, so far) - odd how most of these games are ww2 based games, but i guess ww2 games attract alot of hardcore battlesimmers. So i know it's do-able within other games (one of these being a MMOG) without presumably too greater CPU hit.

How well it would be fitted into the ArmA engine, of course, i don't know. I can only offer my best suggestion which would be a replacement of the hit and indirect hit values with mm penetration and joules of damage, plus a couple of extra values to define the decrease in rate of penetration over distance, combined with a rethink of the damage LODs on models to match. Of course this way of doing things would also bring added complications - the angle a round hits the armour, spalling, whether it hits the armour plate at the center or the edge, etc - do you model these? But at the very least a 'simplified' penetration system would beat the arcade mode we have now.

I agree with you it wouldnt be a game breaker if it wasnt included, but if Game 2 remains BIs attempt to make a true next generation game, a game that pushes boundaries and redefines the entire wargame genre, i feel, and i'm sure others will agree with me, that the simplistic system we have now must be swapped out. I mean, if they are to fufill this 'next gen game' vision, every aspect must be perfect, rather than a simplified hash job, imo.

[Kirby 2]

That would be awesome.

I wonder if it would also be possible to model the holes lol.

Say you hit the canvas cover of a truck with a few AP rounds or MG bullets. They cut up the guys inside and you see some nice holes in the canvas.

What would also be good, going with this feature, is the ability to open all vehicals doors and use them as cover. Say a HMMWV door will provide more cover than a UAZ door.

UAZ swiss cheese door anyone?

But yeah, this is a good idea overall. Even without my silly little ideas

Like placing one shot into the correct place of the bonnet to disable a car in style (Think near the begining of BHD) or hitting the fuel tank once through the rear body and sending the car into a fireball flip.

or being inside a M113 when suddenly holes start apearing next to you as AP rounds fly into the rear compartments

Or even better, a sniper shooting through a concrete wall with a .50!

[Sundqvist 0]

"or hitting the fuel tank once through the rear body and sending the car into a fireball flip."

Shooting at the fuel tank does NOT make it explode.

Watch less Crappywood movies.

[Pathy 0]

Please, lets not detract from the point of the topic by getting into a debate on the excesses of hollywood special FX.

[Sundqvist 0]

I thought Blazin wanted great fireball efects and other magic tricks to this game