Weapon Balance

[Hunin 0]

Without delving into gameplay comments, the way it works ingame is such:

The 3 things defining the capability of a weapon ingame are the same as in real life: ammo type, muzzle velocity and accuracy.

The bullet type ingame decides how much damage the weapon does on hit aswell as the ballistics.

The magazine decides obviously how many bullets and the muzzle velocity.

That resulted into the well known "AK-74U got same mv as normal 74" problem and of course others.

Fixed in ACE2 by a well crafted scripted sollution.

The DMR and M24 do not use the same magazine class, the only thing common to both is the bullet type so damage and ballistics coefficient.

Last is accuracy which is defined directly in the weapon class.

So concluding I'd say that the method used to model individual weapons is quite sufficient and works well.

Now wether the DMR is modeled true to life is a different topic entirely.

Just from the values:

M24 bullet :

B_762x51_noTracer

hit = 12;

airFriction = -0.0009324;

DMR bullet :

B_762x51_noTracer

identical to M24

M24 mag :

5 rounds

initSpeed = 900;

DMR mag :

20 rounds

initSpeed = 900;

M24

dispersion = 0.00012; ( higher means wider groups )

recoil = "recoil_single_primary_6outof10";

recoilProne = "recoil_single_primary_prone_5outof10";

aiRateOfFire = 8.0; // delay between shots at given distance

aiRateOfFireDistance = 1000;

DMR

dispersion = 0.00045;

recoil = "recoil_single_primary_3outof10";

recoilProne = "recoil_single_primary_prone_3outof10";

aiRateOfFire = 10.0; // delay between shots at given distance

aiRateOfFireDistance = 800;

Looks okay to me apart from recoil.

I doubt that the action and ergonomics of the DMR would half the recoil.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Hunin

[nkenny 1051]

Nice Hunin.

I agree with your assertion. Albeit I still question the 'two-degree' scope. What exactly is the purpose?

[Lamerinio 10]

It seems that Russian weapons are slightly weaker than US in this game and its much much harder to hit things with Russian weapons. Things Ive tried in editor is to hit soldier from around 200m distance with various weapons from using various mods like full auto, semi and burst.

I can tell that US weapons are much more accurate and deal more dmg than Russian weapons.

Also I tested RPGs in game by shooting APCs from boths sides with both side rpgs. Out of all Russian RPGs only Metis manages to blow up APC completely. Rest only disabling it. However US RPGs all make APC explode from first hit.

What I think is that developers deliberately added these values in order to avoid high rate of deaths in campaign.

[nkenny 1051]

5.56x45 NATO is not the same as a 5.45x39mm Russian.

The NATO round might very well have superior ballistic capabilities. BUT.

I think you ignore that many of the russian weapons have different capabilities, different ironsights, and much much more. Overall the 5.45 weapons seem to have less recoil than their US equivalents. Not to mention the blistering rate of fire of the Ak107.

Or what about the fact that the Russians have a Scoped 7.62 LMG in their default Infantry platoons? HUUGE advantage. Not to mention the Dragunov.

Arma2 is not balanced.

Edited December 11, 2009 by NkEnNy

[USSRsniper 0]

VSS Vintorez is overpowered too, takes a few shots with VSS to blow up gas stations and vehicles :eek: Even one VSS magazine can destroy certain buildings. VSS is like silenced 20mm sniper rifle.

[galzohar 31]

When I meant "clumsy", I meant in comparison to assault rifles, especially shorter ones like the M4A1. In the game you don't really feel the difference. Same for dispersion - you simply don't notice the differences between weapons with different dispersion values in the config. I don't know the exact capabilities of the DMR in terms of accuracy to measure it, but I would really not be surprised if the in-game dispersion is not anywhere very close to the RL one. BIS just don't seem to put too much effort into things like this.

In-game US AT weapons *should* be better than the Russian ones because AFAIK they're better IRL as well. Again the actual balance should come from the mission makers, not from BIS, who should only focus on realism (that is once you accept the fact BIS will never make us good missions, even though they really should do that as well).

[USSRsniper 0]

In-game US AT weapons *should* be better than the Russian ones because AFAIK they're better IRL as well.

It also all depends on player skills, some people cry about balance because they are simply bad at playing ArmA 2.. Some playes still don't know that RPG-7 has different rounds...

Not to mention the Dragunov.

How is Dragunov unbalanced? Is it because of the rangefinder?

Also I tested RPGs in game by shooting APCs from boths sides with both side rpgs. Out of all Russian RPGs only Metis manages to blow up APC completely.

have you tried different RPG rounds? PG7V, PG7VL, PG7VR, OG7. With PG7VR even Abrams sometimes blows up from one shot.

Edited December 12, 2009 by USSRsniper

[oxmox 73]

I did notice that the US have a much better silenced sniper rifle i.e. M107 silenced than the east forces.

I did try the VSS, the only silenced sniper rifle available for the east and the M107 silenced is just superior in range.

Silenced sniper rifles have a big advantage since it is hard to say from which position you did shoot and AI also doesnt recognize your direction that easy in comparison to none silenced weapons.

[galzohar 31]

M107 silenced? Not in vanilla Arma 2 at least...

[Purplehasiso 10]

Alright so is it safe to say that the developers put in weapons of each side not worrying about multiplayer balance as far as all weapons on one side against all weapons on the other?

[Beagle 684]

Alright so is it safe to say that the developers put in weapons of each side not worrying about multiplayer balance as far as all weapons on one side against all weapons on the other?

No, they just put into what is available in the according armory.

In fact this unbalance just leads to different playing styles to reflect this.

You do ot need artificial balance to win a game...each side has different weaknesses and strengths.

[Purplehasiso 10]

No, they just put into what is available in the according armory.

In fact this unbalance just leads to different playing styles to reflect this.

You do ot need artificial balance to win a game...each side has different weaknesses and strengths.

Do you have a link or source that confirms this? I just want to be sure before I relay this info.

[Beagle 684]

Do you have a link or source that confirms this? I just want to be sure before I relay this info.

The source is the game...just play it and you will see it easily.

ArmA2 Warfare is a typical scenario that shows this.

In simple "hit point" number there is no balance...OPFOR tanks have bad armour and do not survive a sabot hit, Hinds are ablolutely inferior to AHs, USMC has a huge lack in AAA capabilities and OPFOR lacks NV googles on most units, Speznaz excluded.

The calculation goes like:

OPFOR - better overall firepower but less sophisticated (except superweapon Ka-52 but his is hampered by bad cockpit view and semifixed cannon)

USMC - better armour, better sensors, more Fire & Forget weapons.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Beagle

[galzohar 31]

Since BIS didn't actually make playable multiplayer missions (and TBH the SP missions they made aren't too playable either), it's only a matter of putting 2 and 2 together to see that they did not at all care if the sides at the end are perfectly balanced or not, though you can see that they did spend more or less equal effort in modeling the weapons and equipment on both sides, as they have a very similar variety of weapons and vehicles.

After all, in the end the ones who is responsible for the balance is the mission maker. Unless the sides have the exact same mission in a 100% mirror match, there is no real need for the weapons to exactly mirror eachother anyway, as even if they did it wouldn't save the mission maker any real balancing effort - he'd still need to put just as much effort into balancing his mission properly.

In the end balance is decided by which side wins a mission more often than the other - which has much bigger things affecting it in addition to the difference in weapons.

[-Shifty- 10]

ArmA 2 isn't meant to be balanced. If it were balanced it would be BF2 or BF-BC2. It's a milsim so it's going to be realistic.

Certain teams have certain advantages, use them. Russia might have inferior armor compared to US tanks but they're cheaper, so buy more and overwhelm the US armor.

There's always some way to counter an opposition.

"Improvise, adapt, overcome." - USMC

[walker 0]

Hi all

In Reply to Purplehasiso

As I said already to balance a mission that is always down to the mission maker. Balance numbers against superior weapons. Balance Armor with terrain and fuel constraints. Balance superior weapons and numbers with ROE and asymmetric targets. Etc.

ArmA Vanilla is not an old fashioned paintball simulator like other FPS, though it would be one of the easiest mods you could make. If you want balanced weapons just give both sides identical weapons or if you want them to be the same but look different as I said just mod it. It is down to config changes the weapons would not take more than 30 minutes to alter, all you are doing is copying one sides config over the others.

War is not a game with balance though; it is inherently unbalanced, the factors that balance sides in war are human factors. Once again ArmA is not like an FPS paintball simulator ArmA simulates War.

Deal with it.

War is far more complex than paintball.

Whether it be constraints of ROE to not appear to be monsters, so in Afghanistan we do not Nerve Gas, Nuke and Bio-weapon the Taliban. Or on the other side Al Qaeda "balance" by getting real monster dads to send their own 9 year old daughters off to Suicide bomb for a few Wahhabi dollars. Or bombing civilians on a bus or in a market.

Because Al Qaeda choose the monster method to "Balance" their inability to match on the battle field, their ethical/moral battle is lost and thus they loose the political war. Remembering that "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means," as Carl von Clausewitz pointed out in his Antithesis to his thesis "war is nothing but a duel [or wrestling match, a better translation of the German Zweikampf] on a larger scale." The latter being the war needs to be balanced argument Purplehasiso is putting.

Once again vanilla ArmA is not a paintball balance simulator ArmA is the complex story about the real balance of war not simplistic paintball competition.

ArmA then is the Antithesis to the First Person Paintball Simulator (FPPS) like say COD or Unreal.

ArmA is not just that Antithesis of the FPPS it is also the one and only place that the Synthesis of those two parts of the Dialectic Argument takes place; as it is the only place where both sides of the argument can be and are being tested daily.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 6, 2010 by walker

[Beagle 684]

...im knocked out by words...:p

[afp 1]

I think one point where the game is unbalanced is simulating East weapons reliability. It's well known Vietnam M16 issues while in Irak a lot of soldiers claimed M4 problems. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/12/world/main5377711.shtml

The real difference between common East and West weapons is not that big as in game, basically is accuracy vs reliability and only first one is simulated. Also in game an ACOG scope makes all the difference in the world, while in real is not exactly the same.

War (and life) is not fair indeed still the game is a bit in favor of the West weapons. And I think I'm not biased since I have no reason to be in any of the parts favor.

[-Shifty- 10]

AFP, I'm assuming you've never been in a military service or have had extensive time using an M16A4 or any AK.

AKs have gotten more accurate (not much) and M16s are way more reliable. Marines are hardly having problems with them anymore because of proper cleaning and using the right tools to clean.

So basically, you're still in the 70s...

[afp 1]

AFP, I'm assuming you've never been in a military service or have had extensive time using an M16A4 or any AK.

AKs have gotten more accurate (not much) and M16s are way more reliable. Marines are hardly having problems with them anymore because of proper cleaning and using the right tools to clean.

So basically, you're still in the 70s...

Actually I've been using AK during my military service back in '90, which was kinda innacurate. I never fired any western weapon but I belive that reports about reliability from Gulf soldiers are true.

I'm not going to go in a discussion about reliability because "proper cleaning" means unreliable. War is not in "proper" conditions neither a shooting range. And there are reports about this.

EDIT: what I meant about unbiasing is that my country is in NATO and using western equipment and uniforms but east weapons - AK. Kinda weird, indeed.

Edited February 7, 2010 by afp

[-Shifty- 10]

Every weapon needs "Proper" cleaning eventually, the M16 just needs it a little more often.

Normally if you clean it before an operation it should work properly.

In the desert in California shooting AKs and M16A2s and M4s I never once had a jam.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Two Quick reminders before we go down the M16 is better than the AK road for 1000th time.

1) The modern AK shown in ArmA for most forces is that used by the Russians, it is no longer the AK47 with its 7.62 round. It is either an AK74 or the AK107 that the Russians use, both of which use the 5.45 mm round and so do not suffer anything like the muzzle rise problem of the AK47. The AK 107 also has balanced recoil and is probably slightly more accurate than the M16.

2 Among the AK107's are those with the PSO sight which is comparable to the capabilities of ACOG on an M16.

This fact is open for you to see when you play ArmA which I presume you have done and if not then it is here listed on the BIS ArmA II website.

http://www.arma2.com/assault-rifles_en.html

Most of the myths about the AK47 come from a gun that is copied pirated and manufactured at varying grades of quality in everything from modern western factories to machine shops in the backs of bazaars in the tribal areas of Pakistan from bits of old car engines or water pipes and stamped out of old oil drums.

Or from the same guns that have been traded by characters like Victor Bout from one war to another all round the world. Victor Bout used to trade guns by weight rather than number. With each trade the guns would get more worn and parts were missing and were replaced with whatever came to hand or just stayed missing.

There are probably AK47s turning up in Somalia and the Congo today that were first used in Korea then ended up in Vietnam then went to South America then to Angola, then to Mozambique, then to Iran Iraq, then to Afghanistan, then to Chechnya then to the Balkans, then to back to Afghanistan and on and on. There are probably AKs that have been to more countires than most of the people on this board.

Worse still was the ammunition. Which up in Northern Pakistan and across the border in Afghanistan was made from recycled brass cartridges filled with everything from match heads to charcoal and sand. It is not unusual for rounds from these places to go six inches down the barrel to be hit from behind by the next round which came from a proper source, with predictable results for the user. Rumour has it that that is what really happened to Mullah Hookie, the mad mullah of Finsbury Park, it blew out both his eyes and blew off both his hands.

So can we please not have the AK is inaccurate myth gone over for the 1000th time.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 9, 2010 by walker

[Fiya 10]

AFP, I'm assuming you've never been in a military service or have had extensive time using an M16A4 or any AK.

AKs have gotten more accurate (not much) and M16s are way more reliable. Marines are hardly having problems with them anymore because of proper cleaning and using the right tools to clean.

So basically, you're still in the 70s...

Man, you like to your bias with fries. Your posts in the thread about your 'favorite gun' were ridiculous. Incorrect info, hypocrisy, and opinionated and insulting 'facts'.

[before I forget, about the M16s... Not just poor 'Cleaning' for the 'self cleaning' rifle. Poor AMMO was and is a huge reason for failure also. Mags have been another reason.]

Finally, "AK"s not getting 'much' more accurate. Wow. Its crazy how you say that about a series of rifles with a huge variety, many models and improvements... To the M series... Do I need to say more?

The '47' compared the the 107? Hah, sounds like your straight out of Call of Duty. Or one of those guys who thinks everything Kalashnikov is a AK-47. (The best is when they have shot a Chinese clone IRL and believe all AK's must be like that.)

The AK line has has huge improvements in design, accuracy, and engineering. I'm not saying the M16 was never improved, because it was. Yet not nearly asmuch as the Kalashnikov series. I don't even understand how you would not see that.:confused:

The M16 series is LEAPS and BOUNDS past the first models/uses. A great rifle. Again thats personal opinion. That doesn't mean it doesn't fail and fail often when compared to other modern assault rifles.

I have personally seen and used a export version of a COPY of a near modern Kalshnikov, and I can vouch for its accuracy in comparison to the M4. The 107 would be a fair improvement on the copy.

So basically, your still in the 60s...

/rant

Edited February 8, 2010 by Fiya
60's.

[afp 1]

Yes, the thread risks to go in a "m16 vs AK" discussion again, so we better stop.

On the other hand, simulating failures would be a nice idea, like in ACE1.

And also I think you aim too fast with ACOG or other scopes, it takes some time to aquire your target in real with any scope, what you think?

[galzohar 31]

They will never manage to simulate jamming realistically. They already tried implementing overheating and the way I see it it is a failure as well. It's not really possible to implement the factors that affect jams IRL in the game.