BIS: It's already time to FIX the M136!!!

[ricnunes 0]

Hmm, I did all my tests with the RPG-7. It falls under the exact same category as an M136 and also the RPG-18.

I think what you are seeing here is balance. It wouldn't be right if the US had a smaw, Javelin and an M136, and the Russians are just left with some lousy RPG's. Maybe BIS will patch it, but it seems pretty normal to me.

The SMAW is able to fire multiple rounds, does twice the damage as an M136, and the russians have some RPG's. Seems fair to me, in terms of balance.

(So you are correct, its unrealistic, but it is very balanced)

In which part does the RPG-7 fall in the same category as the M136 or the RPG-18?? The RPG-7 is a reloadable recoilless rifle while the M136 and the RPG-18 are disposable recoilless rifles so if the RPG-7 is to fall within a category it should fall in the same category as the SMAW which is also a reloadable recoilless rifle!

Besides this game (ArmA2) is supposed to be a REALISTIC simulator which should model weapons in a REALISTIC base and NOT in a BALANCE base.

Anyway, let speak a bit about your new "balance" argument regarding AT weapons:

1- In ArmA2, the US has the Javelin and the Russians have the Metis and both balance each other don't you think? (BTW, you forgot to mention the Metis in your post).

2- The US has the SMAW which is a very effective and powerfull non-guided AT weapon. And the Russians have the RPG-7 armed with -VR (tandem) warheads which have a similar in terms of destructive power and effectiveness as the US SMAW. So yes, as opposed to what you said there's a good Russian counterpart to the SMAW which is in fact the RPG-7 but you have to equip it with -VR warheads to have a similar perfomance as SMAW's anti-armour warhears. Besides the RPG-7 can also be equiped with OG-7 (HE) warhead which are very effective against infantry and that is a counterpart to the SMAW equiped with DP (Dual Purpose) warheads.

3- Finally there's the M136 and the RPG-18 which are the "real" counterparts in ArmA2 but in ArmA2 the RPG-18 is much more effective and destructive than the M136 which is not realistic since in real life it's exactly the opposite (in real life the M136 is much more effective than the RPG-18).

Finally I don't accept that "balance over realism" argument since in real life wars are NOT FAIR and are NOT BALANCED and since ArmA2 aims to be a REALISTIC simulator than it should model realism over balance and not the opposite (specially in things like AT weapons such as the M136 and RPG-18 or others). Of course ArmA2 is a game and since it's a game it must have balance factors but NOT THIS balance factor (RPG-18 being more effective than the M136)!

Edited February 10, 2010 by ricnunes

[Guest]

When I said same category, I meant in Arma 2, not real life. The same way a glock 18 and an M9 are both "pistols" in arma 2. Arma 2 is not about pure realism, thats where mods come in. The standard Arma 2 IS about balance, it's hard to make a game where the US just dominate everything in sight. I mean, only a few opfor vehicles in Arma 2 can compare to the US versions.

Seriously, why are you making such a big deal of all this? The answer to your post has been answered on pretty much every page.

Anyway, I think you need to chill the hell out.

(p.s, you are not the developer for BIS, since when did you decide what it is aiming to be?)

[galzohar 31]

In vanilla, PG7-VR takes 1.5X the space of SMAW rounds and is much harder to aim at distant targets. Also RPGs have whacky ballistics, which become even worse when using PG7-VR ammo. OG-7 seems quite weak, especially when compared to the incredibly powerful SMAW with HEDP ammo.

In the end though who cares if it's balanced or not, what matters is whether it's realistic or not! Balance is the job of the mission maker, not BIS. That is, unless BIS decide to actually make missions that people would play but they don't seem to consider that as part of their job, at least if you look at the missions that they have made...

Disposable weapons have a working solution in ACE2, which really makes me wonder why the hell couldn't BIS do it in the firstplace.

[Guest]

Because BIS have much more to think about than a few guys complaing that this that and the other is wrong. If they wanted to do it different, they would. They do their job, and us, as a community should do ours.

That does not involve complaining about everything.

[max power 21]

In which part does the RPG-7 fall in the same category as the M136 or the RPG-18?? The RPG-7 is a reloadable recoilless rifle while the M136 and the RPG-18 are disposable recoilless rifles so if the RPG-7 is to fall within a category it should fall in the same category as the SMAW which is also a reloadable recoilless rifle!

Besides this game (ArmA2) is supposed to be a REALISTIC simulator which should model weapons in a REALISTIC base and NOT in a BALANCE base.

Realism is a spectrum, not a black and white issue.

Also, just a niggling thing, I don't think any of those have rifled barrels so they aren't rifles. They are of course 'recoilless' weapons. Most ammunition for the RPG-7 actually has a sustained rocket motor, whereas most of the rocket motors in western weapons completely burns out while the projectile is still in the smooth bore tube.

Anyway, let speak a bit about your new "balance" argument regarding AT weapons:

[...]

2- The US has the SMAW which is a very effective and powerfull non-guided AT weapon. And the Russians have the RPG-7 armed with -VR (tandem) warheads which have a similar in terms of destructive power and effectiveness as the US SMAW. So yes, as opposed to what you said there's a good Russian counterpart to the SMAW which is in fact the RPG-7 but you have to equip it with -VR warheads to have a similar perfomance as SMAW's anti-armour warhears. Besides the RPG-7 can also be equiped with OG-7 (HE) warhead which are very effective against infantry and that is a counterpart to the SMAW equiped with DP (Dual Purpose) warheads.

I think the SMAW is over represented in the game. The HEAA should penetrate somewhat less than the PG-7vr. That is, if penetration is analogous to hit points damage.

3- Finally there's the M136 and the RPG-18 which are the "real" counterparts in ArmA2 but in ArmA2 the RPG-18 is much more effective and destructive than the M136 which is not realistic since in real life it's exactly the opposite (in real life the M136 is much more effective than the RPG-18).

I think the real Russian counterpart to the m136 at-4 is probably the RPG-26 or RPG-27. The RPG-18 is obsolete and out of production. The future counterpart to the m136 will be the RPG-28 which can penetrate 1m of RHA behind ERA (!!!). I think instead of messing with either weapon, they should just call the RPG-18 the RPG-27 and be done with it.

Finally I don't accept that "balance over realism" argument since in real life wars are NOT FAIR and are NOT BALANCED and since ArmA2 aims to be a REALISTIC simulator than it should model realism over balance and not the opposite (specially in things like AT weapons such as the M136 and RPG-18 or others). Of course ArmA2 is a game and since it's a game it must have balance factors but NOT THIS balance factor (RPG-18 being more effective than the M136)!

Yeah, it shouldn't have the RPG-18 in there at all. Call it something that is actually still issued in the Russian army and this whole thing goes away.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

The current problem with the M136 in ArmA2 is that it's not only UNREALISTIC but also there's NO point in carrying one when you have the SMAW in ArmA2. So this is not only a REALISM problem but also a GAMEPLAY/BALANCE one as well!

Weird proclamation. So you claim that missions where everyone gets SMAW is realistic? Most marines aren't even trained in using it. Even when we do have a SMAW guy (he only gets two rockets), and an ammo bearer (4 extra rockets, but usually only carry two on him, rest is stowed), the M136s serves as nice backups. And even when they are carried, we try to wait for the SMAW team to get into position rather than spend the M136 tubes. This approach was used both with ACE and without, and has served us well.

And our experience with at least the vanilla M136 is that it is far too powerful (or armored vehicles too weak). Too often you get catastrophic kills, even when we try to avoid it. And vanilla SMAW... You can hit targets at 2000m, and cause catastrophic kills on T90s at that range. Pretty good for a weapon said to have 500-700m effective range... Which makes IT way overpowered compared to the RPG with 7VR rockets.

Both main factions have single and multishot launchers. Pretty good deal for balance if you ask me. Not everything is perfect, I agree, but it does a pretty good job in keeping us entertained. For us that want to go further, we can go the ACE way, which does seem to implement a lot of the "bad stuff" as well.

Edited February 11, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[whisper 0]

To end the debate, this is directly from A2 1.05 config files :

RPG18 :

 class R_RPG18_AT: RocketBase
{
 model = "\ca\weapons\m136_Rocket";
 hit = 300;
 indirectHit = 7.5;
 indirectHitRange = 1;
 cost = 200;
 timeToLive = 6;
 initTime = 0;
 thrust = 80;
 thrustTime = 1;
 maxSpeed = 115;

M136 :

 class R_M136_AT: RocketBase
{
 hit = 335;
 indirectHit = 11;
 indirectHitRange = 1.1;
 model = "\ca\weapons\m136_Rocket";
 cost = 200;
 initTime = 0.1;
 thrust = 280;
 thrustTime = 1;
 maxSpeed = 290;

Conclusion : in game, RPG18 hits for less, has less explosive power and is considerably slower. What's wrong with that, exactly?

/thread

[Guest]

Whisper owns all, ends speculation, and proves exactly what we have been saying all along.

[whisper 0]

I'm quite amazed by the speed difference, tbh.

Is it that way with the real deal?

[Guest]

# Time of flight (to 250 metres): less than 1 second

# Muzzle velocity: 285 metres (950 feet) per second

Of the weapons discussed in this manual, the M136 AT4 is the best for engaging moving armored vehicles. One of its advantages is the speed of its round, which travels faster and farther than the other shoulder-launched munitions.

Interesting.

---------- Post added at 01:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 AM ----------

So judging by ingame stats, the weapon speeds are calculated in metres per second. In that case Arma 2 is pretty much spot on.

[galzohar 31]

Maybe the speeds are spot on for those weapons, but I remember many complaints about other weapons having their speeds wrong.

Is the indirect hit damage radius really only 1 meter? That would explain why they suck so badly against infantry. Not that they should be effective, but currently they seem extremely bad.

[max power 21]

Maybe the speeds are spot on for those weapons, but I remember many complaints about other weapons having their speeds wrong.

Is the indirect hit damage radius really only 1 meter? That would explain why they suck so badly against infantry. Not that they should be effective, but currently they seem extremely bad.

I think within 1 meter you get the full damage and it radiates out from there.

[whisper 0]

Maybe the speeds are spot on for those weapons, but I remember many complaints about other weapons having their speeds wrong.

Is the indirect hit damage radius really only 1 meter? That would explain why they suck so badly against infantry. Not that they should be effective, but currently they seem extremely bad.

Problems with other weapons are not their speed and how BI is spot on or not, but they are due to the fact that the physics is screwed in A2, if I remember well. Smtg like 1g acceleration not having the correct value... Ask the ACE2 guys, they are the one who posted their results

[NoRailgunner 0]

Aren't russian forces using RPG-7, RPG-26, RPG-27 and RPG-29 as AT weapons? RPG-18 ("copy" of the M72 LAW) were imho replaced in the early 90's.

Would be better if BIS would implement better and working ammunition against non-armored units (eg fragmentation rounds), light armored and heavy armored vehicles. Of course AI should be able to know the differences too. Its still annoying if an AI AT soldiers aim's and fire at one infantry unit - wasting AT ammo. :rolleyes:

[max power 21]

Aren't russian forces using RPG-7, RPG-26, RPG-27 and RPG-29 as AT weapons? RPG-18 ("copy" of the M72 LAW) were imho replaced in the early 90's.

Would be better if BIS would implement better and working ammunition against non-armored units (eg fragmentation rounds), light armored and heavy armored vehicles. Of course AI should be able to know the differences too. Its still annoying if an AI AT soldiers aim's and fire at one infantry unit - wasting AT ammo. :rolleyes:

They compute what weapon they should use based on the range, damage, opponent's armour, 'cost' of the weapon, and I think something else. It's already in there, there's just some errant behaviour.

[ricnunes 0]

To end the debate, this is directly from A2 1.05 config files :

RPG18 :

 class R_RPG18_AT: RocketBase
{
 model = "\ca\weapons\m136_Rocket";
 hit = 300;
 indirectHit = 7.5;
 indirectHitRange = 1;
 cost = 200;
 timeToLive = 6;
 initTime = 0;
 thrust = 80;
 thrustTime = 1;
 maxSpeed = 115;

M136 :

 class R_M136_AT: RocketBase
{
 hit = 335;
 indirectHit = 11;
 indirectHitRange = 1.1;
 model = "\ca\weapons\m136_Rocket";
 cost = 200;
 initTime = 0.1;
 thrust = 280;
 thrustTime = 1;
 maxSpeed = 290;

Conclusion : in game, RPG18 hits for less, has less explosive power and is considerably slower. What's wrong with that, exactly?

/thread

THE PROBLEM IS:

- Despite the values being slighty superior for the M136 THE FACT is that in ArmA2 the RPG-18 is IN FACT MUCH MORE POWERFULL than the M136 (See my test results and be free to duplicate them!) SO THERE MUST BE A BUG HERE!

This means that either there's a values which is not in that list that makes the RPG-18 more powerfull (than the M136) or there's a bug regarding how these weapons work!

REALLY IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?? IS MY ENGLISH THAT BAD?? Really what the matter with you people?? The RPG-18 is CLEARLY more powerfull than the M136 in ArmA2 and in REAL LIFE it ISN'T (in real life the M136 is much more powerfull) and since ArmA2 aims to be a REALISTIC SIMULATOR EVEN WITHOUT MODS than there's something WRONG here, PERIOD!! I won't even drag myself into the "balance" discussion - There's something wrong here and LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S WRONG OR BROKEN IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED, PERIOD!

And one more proof that there's somrthing wrong here is that by looking into the values that whisper posted the M136 should in fact be more powerfull in the ArmA2 but it isn't so "smells" me a bug.

BTW, I agree that the RPG-18 should instead be RPG-27 or something similar since the RPG-18 seems to be oudated and phased out from Russian service.

---------- Post added at 08:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------

(p.s, you are not the developer for BIS, since when did you decide what it is aiming to be?)

This is quoted from the ArmA2 OFFICIAL WEBSITE:

ARMA 2 - The Ultimate Military Simulation for PC

Someone that has an IQ superior than 10 (ten) can easily understand that ArmA2 is aimed for REALISM!! :j:

[[asa]oden 0]

While screaming could you please host you mission?

I made some swift tests and I cannot reproduce your results but rather that the M136 is doing 70 to 75% damage on a BMP3 and the RPG18 is between 50 and 65%.

My test: http://odenhouse.servegame.com/rpg.utes.7z

[max power 21]

I just did a bunch of tests and I didn't really find any appreciable difference between the two launchers. I certainly didn't find that the rpg-18 was more powerful.

I tested front, side, and rear hits on BMP-2s, Vodniks and Shilkas with the m-136 and the rpg-18. I did each test several times.

Vs. BMP-2s, I found that sometimes the m136 would hit but the hit wouldn't register as a hit on the tank for some reason. The BMP-2 would be shrouded in smoke from the rocket's explosion but it wouldn't register any damage. Typically, both launchers would ruin a track and the gun barrel from the front, a track and the turret from the sides and rear. I found one time that a frontal hit damaged the engine.

Vs. the Vodnik, each launcher exploded the vehicle 100% of the time.

Vs. the Shilka, both launchers would invariably wreck the turrent and both tracks. From the side, on track would be red and the other would be yellow. From the front, or rear, both tracks would be orange.

Out of the three vehicles, only the vodnik was destroyed by these launchers. At no time did either of them fail to disable the heavier vehicles, and at no time did they succeed in destroying them.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Max Power

[Guest]

ricnunes, you are really annoying. If EVERYBODY is speaking against you, and physical, written PROOF denies you, why do you insist to carry on?

Get over it! You want it fixed? Learn to mod. Nobody wants to hear you insulting others and screaming like a little baby.

[Zipper5 74]

Christ, someone needs a time out...

How in any way, shape or form can the RPG18 be more powerful than the M136 if it is obvious from the configs that it is not? You cannot have a bug with config values, only if you've put the wrong ones in, which is not the case here.

The M136 is stronger than the RPG18 in the game, as it should be. Period. If you really want to take it to the next level I will be happy to make a video proving you wrong and post it here.

[Guest]

This thread is...

Nice...

[Zipper5 74]

I think most threads are going to get at least one post like that in them now, richie. :p

[OFFTOPIC] I believe it's spelled "laid" too, not "layed". :D [/OFFTOPIC]

Edited February 13, 2010 by Zipper5
And I fail for putting "believed"... D:

[Guest]

I think most threads are going to get at least one post like that in them now, richie. :p

[OFFTOPIC] I believed it's spelled "laid" too, not "layed". :D [/OFFTOPIC]

LOL, I fail :D

[max power 21]

Ricunes, perhaps you could reiterate your test methods. Was it only on the BMP-3? How many times did you test? Did you test under controlled conditions? Did all of your shots hit? You did all of your tests without mods?

I'm not saying you're stupid by suggesting your methods are flawed. I haven't yet tested on a BMP-3. Perhaps there is something complex happening with the BMP-3's dimensions or damage model. When you respond with explicit instructions, I'll try and replicate your results.

[TangoRomeo 10]

THE PROBLEM IS:

This is quoted from the ArmA2 OFFICIAL WEBSITE:

Someone that has an IQ superior than 10 (ten) can easily understand that ArmA2 is aimed for REALISM!! :j:

Just marketing spin. :)

Some simulation aspects have been added by the community, but generally it was, and is, a tactical shooter at it's core.