SeXyWombat

I have a simple question with a probably not-so-simple answer: how did the Liberation 1941-1945 Mod tank damage system exactly work? I would love the idea of reapplying it to modern armor, but I can't find any documentation etc. whatsoever. I tried to mimic it with my own project for ArmA, but the results were far from what I've seen in LIBMOD and I wasn't exactly pleased with that. So - any possible hints? What was the scripting/config solution they used? I don't want to steal their scripts, I just want to become aware of the solutions they used and work with them to create some new content for our beloved game.

I'm currently working on a new damage system for ArmA vehicles. Basic Features: * Basic IR devices for tanks that irl use them. * New config entries - BIS damage system will effectively work only with turrets and tracks; knocking out a tank no longer means it explodes. This means much more mobility kills and weapon kills and less explosions. * New penetration system - tanks may receive critical hits from rounds that irl can penetrate their armor; penetration will be calculated based on side from which tank was hit (front/side/rear), type of damage (kinetic for rounds like SABOT, chemical for HEAT and explosive for, well, explosives), penetration capabilities of projectiles and, in relevant cases, distance; the system will take different armour resistance to different ammo types into account. * New critical hit system - penetration will result in crew casualties, engine damage, ammo destruction, weapon systems malfunctioning etc. Each tank will have individual critical hit table. Features planned for further releases: * Functional ERA. * Functional ARENA system. * MPAT and HE-FS simulation. * T-x turret pops up when the tank explodes. MP compatibility: unknown, but probably should work. Final Release: when it's done. Demo/Beta: probably soon.

PreAlpha version of the M1A1 vs T72 demo is almost done. I'm currently going to do some bug testing and if everything is fine I'm going to make a release in a few days as promised. Stay tuned. EDIT: Played a few games just to check it out. At one time I made something like a battalion sized T-72 force (36 tanks) attack an M1A1 company (12 tanks). The attacking force was obliterated with only two Abrams tanks burning in the end (and some crews disembarking due to battle damage). I know it wasn't exactly Desert Storm, but... take that, vanilla ArmA!

It would be nice, but I don't know if there's any way of getting the angle of impact from the game. Using the angle between the projectile and the tank doesn't really do it justice, as the point of impact is not always the center of the tank (actually, it's a weak point of this system, as selections seem to be not reliable enough to determine if rear/side/front armour was attacked and it has to be calculated based on the direction the tank is facing in relation to the projectile - so if the tank has exposed side and a little bit of front armour and you hit the front part, side armour value will unfortunately be used in determining if a critical hit has occurred).

ArmA vehicle combat is pretty arcade'ish due to HP system and whatnot. Ok, here's the idea: Let's change armored vehicle configs setting their HP values really high (so that no hit will damage the vehicle using the BIS system). Let's change ammo configs so that they have very different damage values to identify the ammo type when the vehicle is hit using the "dammaged" eventHandler. When the vehicle is hit, we use a script to "roll a dice" in a table corresponding to the ammo used, vehicle selection and type of vehicle we get from the EH to determine the effects. That way we could get all the realistic sorts of results, ranging from ricochet/no effect through killed/wounded crew members and/or mobility kill to ammo explosion. Since my ArmA editing knowledge is somewhat limited in some of the required fields I need your help. 1) Is there a way to damage a specific section of the vehicle through a script? Like setdammage directly to engine/main gun etc. 2) How exactly does the BIS vehicle damage model work? Is the damage inflicted by a given type of ammo a constant, randomly generated or something else? 3) Are there any good tutorials on editing armor/HP/ammo values? Links would be very much appreciated. And finally 4) Is there any reason why this idea would not work? Thanks in advance.

Yeah, but since incorporating it is going to be like adding 2 lines to the script I don't believe it's an issue really. If it's important and released it's probably going to be there.

It's not like there are tons of tank addons and tank types taking part in combat irl anyway. And I hope that each release is going to include the best tank addons the community has produced - but that just depends on getting the permissions.

.50cal and the like round hits will cause armour checks for vehicles like BMP and may result in penetration (so yes, you will be able to kill the crew if you fire your M107/M2 at a BMP). It's v1.0 stuff though - the demo will include only M1A1 and T72.

Nothing groundbreaking, at least in the demo release. Basically applying the stuff that's already been done (like in MAPFACT_AirPack) to tanks.

In the first (demo) release - no, no way. Demo is going to be just the basic scripts and basic features. Basically, it's going to be M1A1 vs T72 themed with a few missions to play around with and no compatibility claims with other units whatsoever. In 1.0 hopefully you will see T-series tanks' turrets blown off and some custom hit effects. The system will cover all the vanilla ArmA units and some user created ones if I get the permissions by then. Just remember it's not an eye candy project. The focus is on changing the damage system and creating a more realistic environment for armored combat in ArmA.

aaaaah, good to hear ... _demo/betaRelease = random 7 _v1.0Release = _demo/betaRelease + random 21 (and that's a very rough estimate) _finalRelease = when I say it's final. Pleased? But seriously, I don't want to feel any pressure. Nevertheless, the scripts and config guidelines are mostly done, so if you're interested, you're going to get your hands on this stuff rather sooner than later.

Addons will have to be modified to work with the system, but the process is not going to be very complicated (nevertheless, a little time consuming). The initial pack will include some quality addons modified to work with the system if I get permissions from authors. MP compatibility will not be tested before the first release. If it works, it works - if not, I may try to do something about it later. No guarantees here.

I managed to so to speak say goodbye to default BIS system to a large extent. No more one shot kills. I modified armor value to a very high number, while setting armor value to specific selections at values like 0.02/0.01. That way parts that make the tank go boom, like engine and hull require 5 M289A2 SABOT hits and 10+ T-72 SABOT (whatever was its name ;p) to go. I run a script, that has "thickness" values for parts like front/side/rear/turret (only one value for a turret possible until I find a better way) and checks them against the penetration of any attacking round capable of hurting the tank. It it doesn't penetrate - well, tough luck, no effect. If it does penetrate, there's a critical hit (call to a tank specific script, which chooses between crew kills, engine destruction, weapon system failures etc. based on selection that was penetrated, ammunition used and a "dice roll"). The problem is that due to multiple selections being affected by each round, and the less critical selections relying on BIS system (cause it's not so bad when it works with the turret, gun and tracks alone) we get a "track destroyed" mobility kill when a turret is hit by a powerful SABOT round. I'd love to root out this imperfection, but even if there's no way to do this, this system is already producing some very nice results. Nevertheless, the multiple selections problem messes a little with the critical hit system, so please elaborate on how can I get the "most dammaged selection" out of the game in a script - that would really help. Anyway, if there are no huge bumps hiding on the road ahead, we might very well finally be getting a more realistic tank warfare system.

Ok, I did manage to get some (well, even more than "some") progress going, but there's a problem. Every time I fire a round (even like NWD M289A2 SABOT) into an NWD M1A1 tank, multiple selections are hit (as registered by "dammaged" eventHandler), and sometimes a single selection is hit multiple times (by a single round !. One of these selections is almost always left track or right track (or both). While I can live with almost every strong HE round causing a mobility kill and sometimes weapon damage (which is somewhat realistic and exactly what happens right now), I'd rather get SABOT rounds to work like they should - ie. inflicting a lot of damage on a single selection. The question is: how do I change weapon/ammo config to make it happen (yes, I do know about indirectHit and indirectHitRange and no, it's not working)? If it can't be done like this, is there a possible scripting workaround? It'd be nice to get some help, because the way this system works right now, there's no more tanks blowing up, and somewhat realistic damage, but way too many mobility and/or weapon kills. Thanks in advance.

Isn't the lack of visual input after hitting a target in-your-face? Isn't getting more non-resolved engagements than clear victories or defeats in-your-face? The things I mentioned all make a game more simulation-oriented and more directly inaccessible - just like the 1-shot-kills you mentioned. The thing is, that probably most faithful ArmA players want as much in-your-face stuff as they can get. And as for the coding part and design choices - the "good enough" HP system is not good enough for me, especially since there are so many other options with warying degrees of complexity - some of them really easy to implement (and I mean "give me the attacker's ammo type in -dammaged- eventHandler and it's done" easy) and really shifting the balance of the game towards the realistic experience I'd like to get. I have a right to this opinion. I believe many ArmA fans would gladly welcome more realism in the next game, especially if it could be easily achieved (and please consider the fact that everything would be an improvement over this battlefield-like vehicular combat). You used the phrase "combat sim", and many people believe that ArmA would like to be exactly that - but please tell me, is the exact same damage model as the one used in games like C&C fitting for a combat sim? I understand that business is business, but a part of this business is the simple fact that different customers want different features and ArmA isn't aimed at the same market as, say, CoD4. Keeping things like hit points in seems to be at least a little schisophrenic - it's not going to please realism buffs, while the game by its nature is not going for the mass audience. So perhaps we should shift our attitudes from "supportive-no-matter-what" to constructive criticism. After all, wouldn't you like to see a better implementation of armored combat in ArmA2, or ArmA3 if that's not possible? Don't ArmA players jump mods like ECP and SLX to get the realism enhancements vanilla version does not offer?

wamingo - there are board games that do armor penetration/morale better than ArmA/OFP. The games I mentioned (well, 2 of them) could run on a 486-equipped computer, and actually the code for this kind of stuff can be very, very basic - and work. We actually had decals on objects, like buildings, in ArmA - there is no real reason we couldn't have them on vehicles to indicate damage. And since there are scripts available implementing these features with more or less success (without the access to the source code etc. - I'm willing to bet my head that if ArmA/OFP was open source we would have had all this stuff for ages) I would say that it's not that hard to implement from the designers point of view. Doing the actual research (armor thickness and type, penetration of various kinds of ammunition etc.) would be the time consuming part when it comes to this kind of stuff, but even if the data was flawed, the community could easily come up with new sets. Please realise that I'm not talking about simulation-level modelling, and that doing something basic, yet based on real life rather than magical hit-point mechanics is not that hard to code. It's more like "roll a dice and substract the armor value for the affected part of the vehicle to see if the penetration occured and then roll again and check the result in the damage table" as opposed to "roll a dice, substract armor value and substract the damage from the units HP". As I've said before the damage and (less so) general infantry fighting models are not THAT complicated for the purpose of a computer game like OFP or ArmA, and that current model is more of a design choice than anything else. I do not fear that ArmA2 is going to be more arcady than its predecessors. I fear that it's going to be as arcady as OFP and ArmA. I believe my fears are grounded in reality, since BIS is not really talking about this kind of stuff in previews. And let's be honest - hit points are arcady. Neglecting the importance of morale is very arcady. Both OFP and ArmA had these traits and ArmA2 will have them too, because modelling morale and introducing probability based on armor and weaponry values into armored combat would scare off most casual gamers, since it would make the game difficult to understand for someone without at least basic knowledge of military equipment and tactics. Prolonged firefights ending in a draw or withdrawal due to morale issues do not offer the instant gratification shooting up 10 soldiers by yourself does. Same with realistic vehicle damage - stuff does not always blow up, you do not always end up dead if your tank is KO'd - yet spectacular explosions after successful hits are exactly what most gamers are expecting.

What's so complicated about having a "hit" decal appear on a vehicle roughly at the point of impact (and explosion/fire/smoke appearing if the hit was very serious) and a damage/penetration model similiar to Close Combat or Combat Mission? How about infantry firefight and morale models (which btw. would have a lot of positive impact on the realism of armor engagements too)? These two are both somewhat "indie" games (in terms of money supporting them) well capable of running on 233mhz CPUs and they both have excellent vehicle destruction and infantry combat. Hell, even OFP Liberation mod managed to get armor penetration somewhat right despite having to work against the engine to make it happen. And what's so hard about having T-72/80 turrets blowing off? I mean, M1 Tank Platoon II had them, it's a little bit of physics and a simple property of models (turret can be blown off - y/n) - and saying that it would overload the MP component is simply ridiculous considering the fact that the net traffic it would require would be comparable to a 3-round rifle burst. I simply do not believe it's a case of "not enough time" rather than a concious design choice to make the game more arcade'ish (after all, wondering if the target was KO'd after a direct hit would be frustrating for some gamers, just like dealing with probability of KO rather than simple hit points). Same with morale and suppression - it would be realistic to have a long firefight without a decisive winner (or even casualties) ending in both sides withdrawing due to morale problems and ammo depletion, but it would make the game less enjoyable for casual players. The fact is that BIS most likely is not aiming for the hardcore military simulation some of us would like to see, and there would be nothing wrong about that if ArmA2 wasn't marketed as one. And the worst thing is I'm definitely going to buy it when it comes out. Not because I believe it's really going to be good, but because there's nothing like it on the market. And then I'm going to cry for all the missed opportunities and design flaws. Basically, it's a love-hate relationship.

Maybe use a trigger condition to make the IED strike happen only once - like if IEDexploded=true the script exits, if not it executes with some chance of IED exploding (like x = random 10 and if x is higher than 5 the bomb goes off) and IED always exploding at the last possible location to avoid no attack happening at all. Hope it suits your mission well.

Let's say I have a group of infantry units with an APC (or any other unit capable of carrying transport) attached. How do I keep the infantry from boarding this vehicle when the group is ordered to move somewhere? When building MOUT missions I want my infantry disembarked, yet still coordinating their moves with the vehicle without going away too far. In other words, I'd like this APC to behave just like a normal tank (like T72 or M1A1) would as a part of the infantry group.

Entering units group this allowGetIn false; [driver this] allowgetin true; [gunner this] allowgetin true in the init line of the vehicle helped.

@kestrel7e7 Still, those features could be implemented with a low cost on a boardgame level ("if squad under fire, throw a dice -> if lower than x, go supressed, if lower than y -> go pinned), same goes for virtually everything I talked about. The problem is not with money, it's with design concept. At least that's how I see it. And it's a shame that BIS seems to be somewhat detached from reality - not implementing all this stuff - while us, gamers, mark the game as "unplayable" and wait to see all this stuff "repaired" by various tallented modders. And, given the modding community - it's not even about getting the values right, it's about getting this kind of stuff in hardcode, so that the community doesn't have to script around it. Or at least having "realistic armor penetration" and "squad morale" et cetera as an option, just ike you have "visible waypoints" toggable in veteran/recruit difficulty levels right now. It would wastly improve this game with a low cost.

Some of you have said that modelling morale and supression in a computer game is not really possible or wouldn't be fun - but I think that you're wrong in both cases. Just recall the tremendous success of Close Combat series, first two Combat Mission games or even Brothers in Arms. Just imagine ArmA with Close Combat squad morale/suppression system and immersion system resembling the one in BiA. Just imagine a more detailed environment with lots of cover, smarter AI with working chain of command and armor penetration model taken from Combat Mission (same goes for fire and dust). Now that would be something - and to some extent it is perfectly possible with modern technology. It also wouldn't really be that hard to model armor/penetration values correctly, same goes for ballistics, tank gunnery, modelling weapon systems (I mean why can't we have Javelin's and vehicles like in Americas Army ?). And if believable morale/suppression model could be done in mid 90's, than what's the problem now ? What's the problem with introducing weapon jamming and malfunctions ? Wounding and medevac have also already been done in the past, don't see a problem with that. The only problem would be creating a good tactical AI (correct movement patterns etc.) and getting the ammount of cover right on such large maps, but again there's a lot of room for improvement if one considers using pre-set positions around objects (in Close Combat if you move a squad into a trench, they automatically take positions granting them most cover in the given direction) and waypoints. Wouldn't it be a better game ? Wouldn't it be more realistic ? I think it could become popular with the general public just like realistic war movies do - if only it was done right and without going for compromises that break the experience for both realism buffs and the casual gamers. By the way - of course we can't emulate the "fear of death" factor for players in a computer game, but we can make it much more immersive by making the environment believable. And AI displaying fear or getting pinned down is a big part of that, just like battlefield ambience and getting the equipment right.

I don't know people within the modding community so sorry, I won't be able to help But it's really nice to hear that you're going for the SEP and Bradley. I really miss them in ArmA (and can't understand why would BIS choose M1A1 as main US battle tank... come on, it's pretty much obsolete, right ?)

Maybe you could get a permission from OFrP to use their tank gunnery system ? Would be neat to have it in this great package. Also, how about replacing M1A1 with M1A2 and adding Bradleys ?

Now, considering the fact that there is a working GTLD II Rangefinder out there, would it be possible to somehow merge it with your system and add a tank damage model similiar to the one found in Liberation mod for OFP ? Would you care to develop it that way ? I guess it wouldn't turn ArmA into Steel Beasts, but imo would be far better than M1 Tank Platoon 2. And that would really be something, considering the fact that the base ArmA tank battle model is very arcade'ish.