A-G weapon effectiveness

[Lascaille]

Is it possible to have some updates to the A-G weapon modelling? At the moment, near misses with bombs and rockets have virtually zero effect even on soft targets, which various forum posts suggest is due to no modelling of fragmentation damage, only blast damage (the weapon simply has a radius and a power, damage is calculated by some cube root formula - is this correct?)

 

The effect of this is that when attacking convoys with the smaller rockets such as S8-OFP on the Mi-8 or S5 on the Mig-21 only direct hits are effective. This makes the rocket pods less effective than cannon.

 

Similarly, GBU-12 and MK82 bombs are poorly effective even against soft targets i.e. trucks in a simulated truck park with 5m spacing. Direct hits are a kill, but near misses - or trying to take out two or three soft targets by placing a GBU-12 between them - are not always effective.

[Lascaille]

To supplement, I made a track. I spaced 2 kamaz trucks 100ft apart (using the mission editor scale) which is ~30m, placing the GBU-12 directly between them results in a distance from target to bomb of ~15m. Neither truck was destroyed, one was damaged 'yellow' and the other was damaged but still green. While I would not expect the trucks to be literally shredded or thrown through the air, I would expect them to not be functional...

GBU 12 on trucks.trk

[Skjold]

Agreed 100 %, a proper fragmentation model would make unguided weapons much more potent and fun to use!

[Haukka81]

+10 for this. MK84 feels like firecraker for now :/

[Slazi]

Yup. The grenade laucher feels like a slow indirect machine gun on the Mi-8.

[Zoddom]

+10 for this. MK84 feels like firecraker for now :/

 

Well I guess that solves my wondering about how that ammunition depot could take 2 GBU31s with no scratches:doh:

 

edit: on the otehr side, I love those (new?) effects when buildings (static, storage building) collaps and continue to explode! wheee

[wolfstriked]

I did a rocket attack on one side of a long building and the windows on that side blew out with flames.Looked awesome!

[Domcho]

I am having hard times killing Humvees with S-5 because the rockets are not landing exactly on top of the vehicles.

[Galwran]

This should be fixed especially now that we have lots of aerial rocket platforms and planes without precision strike capability.

 

Even though I would like to have a complex damage modeling for ground units, I would settle for less for at least a while. The main problem is currently that vehicles have only two damage states, and can fight even with 1 hitpoint.

 

I would change this so that vehicles with 50% hitpoints would stop moving but continue firing. This would simulate track or powerplant failure, but they would remain a threat.

 

Units with 80% damage would stop functioning alltogether, but would not burn and explode, so you might have to attack them again.

 

The catch is that it for a maverick hit it would be very rare to get a immobile vehicle because mavericks are so powerfull. But you could immobilize a M1A2 with about three rocket hits.

[REL]

+1 "complex damage modeling for ground units"

[Stratos]

I hope shrapnel damage is modeled soon, as others said the many platforms that have rockets as main weapons claim for this.

[Lascaille]

Alternatively, as a quick fix - if complexities of the engine prevent shrapnel modelling - just to create a 'soft' category of vehicles and multiply by some amount the damage effect/radius for those types of vehicles. This would allow effective attacks on motor pools and truck convoys with rockets and small bombs.