reported cbu-97 damage

[Moonshine]

as said, the weapon might be "realistic" to the extent possible, but the combination with the damage model of ground units makes it virtually useless against tanks or armored vehicles (its intended use). so maybe push for a compromise? make it "do damage" again and adjust it to "realistic" values once the damage model for ground units is at a point where it should be for the changes to work?

gameplay will be severely (and unrealistically) hampered if not..

[NineLine]

56 minutes ago, Moonshine said:

as said, the weapon might be "realistic" to the extent possible, but the combination with the damage model of ground units makes it virtually useless against tanks or armored vehicles (its intended use). so maybe push for a compromise? make it "do damage" again and adjust it to "realistic" values once the damage model for ground units is at a point where it should be for the changes to work?

gameplay will be severely (and unrealistically) hampered if not..

I wouldn't say useless, but one change does require the other in my mind, I am still talking with the team on it, and the F-16 pattern distribution seems off.

[Moonshine]

yeah of course "useless" is overstating it. the weapon can still be used against soft targets. but for tanks its not a pick anymore currently.
thanks for taking the time and looking into it. much appreciated!

[NineLine]

I have requested that this be considered to be rolled back until we can consider appropriate damage to tanks and such. I will leave this open for now, but I think I have enough for now.

The F-16 still needs proper fusing to be done for these types of weapons as well which is planned and coming, that could be the reason for the poor pattern compared to the A-10C.

[Moonshine]

thanks a lot! Any chance to rename this thread, it also affects the cbu -105

Edited October 23, 2023 by Moonshine

[Flapjacks]

Thanks as well for checking on this and all the testing. 

[Bunzy]

1 hour ago, Flapjacks said:

Thanks as well for checking on this and all the testing. 

Agreed. Much obliged.

Fingers crossed it gets reverted back soon.

[H7142]

I think there is a very effective solution that could be implemented relatively quickly without a major rework (which I think we still need) @NineLine

The big problem is a lack of feedback on damage and the fact that stuff remains operational till fully destroyed both of these need addressed.  How hard would it be to add a small white smoke effect and hatches opening animation for more serious damage.  Say if 50% or more of hp lost after one penetrating hit event?  For example there is quite a bit of footage from Ukraine of penetrating hits often resulting in white smoke pouring out causing the crew to immediately bail out.  Then after some time a cookoff could occur (just make this a dice roll as well that's all we really need at this point) playing an explosion effect and thick black smoke with normal fire effects.


null

 

This is the direction the team should be thinking imo.  And I don't see any reason that the current code wouldn't allow this kind of system. 

 

[Tippis]

I'll add my standard copypasta

Fundamentally, the problem is that the damage application for anything that doesn't have complex system simulations (so, all ground and sea units) is completely backwards.

Even a simple hit point system can be made to work while they chip away at more intricate systems modelling in all vehicles, but only if that hitpoint pile is treated properly. Right now, it isn't.

At the moment, ground vehicle damage application basically consists of three different components:

• A hitpoint pile — the bigger the vehicle, the more hitpoints it has, and the tougher it is.
• A damage mitigation stat — an abstraction of armour to simply deflect some smaller amounts of damage application, including an aspect calculation whereby, depending on the vehicle and the angle of attack, the damage mitigation is scaled up or down.
• A four-(and-a-half)-tiered damage state: fine(ish), system-crippled, movement-crippled, (burning, soon to be) dead.

It's that last one that is set up horribly. In particular, the thresholds are nonsensical in relation to the full hitpoint pile, although the order is also questionable. Essentially, it's a case of, at 50% HP, the unit stops working; at 25% (or thereabouts), it starts moving slowly; at 10% it starts burning and will slowly lose its remaining hitpoints; and at 0% it dies and explodes. Not a single one of those are where they should be.

By all means, units should probably explode at 0% HP, but they should start burning a lot sooner (and and stay burning a long time after), and in particular they should be dead long before that. The reason this matters is that the only event you can reliably automate without scripting up every single unit in a mission (say goodbye to your CPU) is death. It's what scores point in the kill screen; it's what most mass triggers (“group dead”, “group alive” and the “…less than” versions of the same triggers) use to do their thing. To make that happen, and to make the attack actually count from a game-mechanical perspective, you end up having to hit individual trucks with 500lbs bombs, where a 0.5lbs bomblet should really be able do the same job: in this case, to reduce the hitpoint pile to 0 to trigger the “death” state.

Similarly, somewhat depending on exactly what kind of unit we're talking about, movement should probably be lost long before the system as a whole is gone, unless we're talking about something flimsy (eg. radar antennas and the like on anti-air), in which case the systems should be gone the moment something sneezes in their general direction.

Ideally, the whole thing would be set up something like:

• The hitpoint pile is still there because it's too much effort to get rid of it.
• The damage states are set by unit type, and all happen a lot sooner. Eg. for a tank, it's mobility loss at 80%, system loss at 70%, death at 50%; for a mobile SAM, it might instead be system loss at 95%, mobility loss at 80%, death at 50%. The only unit where death should happen at 0% HP is infantry, and they should still lose their ability to fight long before that.
• For added bonus funtime: have system loss also affect mobility so that units that lose their offensive capabilities run away really fast, until mobility damage sets in and they instead have to run away really slow… (or just have two stages of reduced mobility if you're boring).
• Tie triggers into not just the revised death limit, but also to the “non-operational” and “immobile” thresholds so those can be used as mass triggers to score points and achieve objectives with ease.

 

[Bunzy]

I saw there was an update today but was bummed to see the CBU change wasn't on there. 

Next one hopefully. 

[LancerVI]

I have to say, I find the A2G effects against targets, effectively useless. The F15E mission "Artillery Pot Shots". I played all day with that thing and different load outs. Unless you get a direct hit, those arty guns will not be silenced. (I promise you. If even one mk82 exploded anywhere near an ARTY unit, they would cease fire and conduct a survivability move. Not that hard to simulate, I would guess)

Further, none of the CBUs (and I tried them all) seem to have any lethality to them at all. I played with burst altitudes, MRAs, fusing; you name it. A2G in DCS on myriad platforms (not just the mud hen) seem to vastly underperform.

DCS is useful for flying and A2A at the moment, but A2G is functionally broken for me, as I prefer the CAS/interdiction role, so combined effects munitions, rockets and guns are my bread and butter. The mk82, 83 and 84 aren't much better. A2G damage modelling needs a serious look, IMHO. 

I'm sure ED has had the opportunity to see the effects of these munitions live over the years. I know I have. A T-90 is not surviving a direct mk.82 hit only to have "32% damage" pop up. It would be a kill, combat ineffective or whatever phrase you choose to name. Period. 

Just my 2 cents as a longtime lurker/flyer.

 

Cheers,

Lancer VI

[Flapjacks]

Thanks NineLine for everything you've done!

[PawlaczGMD]

On 10/28/2023 at 11:36 AM, LancerVI said:

I have to say, I find the A2G effects against targets, effectively useless. The F15E mission "Artillery Pot Shots". I played all day with that thing and different load outs. Unless you get a direct hit, those arty guns will not be silenced. (I promise you. If even one mk82 exploded anywhere near an ARTY unit, they would cease fire and conduct a survivability move. Not that hard to simulate, I would guess)

Further, none of the CBUs (and I tried them all) seem to have any lethality to them at all. I played with burst altitudes, MRAs, fusing; you name it. A2G in DCS on myriad platforms (not just the mud hen) seem to vastly underperform.

DCS is useful for flying and A2A at the moment, but A2G is functionally broken for me, as I prefer the CAS/interdiction role, so combined effects munitions, rockets and guns are my bread and butter. The mk82, 83 and 84 aren't much better. A2G damage modelling needs a serious look, IMHO. 

I'm sure ED has had the opportunity to see the effects of these munitions live over the years. I know I have. A T-90 is not surviving a direct mk.82 hit only to have "32% damage" pop up. It would be a kill, combat ineffective or whatever phrase you choose to name. Period. 

Just my 2 cents as a longtime lurker/flyer.

 

Cheers,

Lancer VI

Agreed. It would be nice to have the A2G damage model addressed and at least have some plans for in the roadmap. It is quite broken, with most A2G weapons being not nearly as effective as they should be - particularly non-precision ones, where non-direct hits are most common.

[JarrodR5]

For now T90s are still not killable with a cbu-105/97 drop. It could be a lot to ask in such a short time. Sorry in advance, but just bringing updated situation on the table. 

 

Many Thanks.

[Hobel]

vor 11 Minuten schrieb JarrodR5:

For now T90s are still not killable with a cbu-105/97 drop. It could be a lot to ask in such a short time. Sorry in advance, but just bringing updated situation on the table. 

 

Many Thanks.

Which version are you playing? In the current Open Beta I can destroy almost 4-5 tanks with a CBU-105.

[NineLine]

On 11/25/2023 at 5:35 PM, JarrodR5 said:

For now T90s are still not killable with a cbu-105/97 drop. It could be a lot to ask in such a short time. Sorry in advance, but just bringing updated situation on the table. 

 

Many Thanks.

No issue here. 

 

[JarrodR5]

17小时前，NineLine说：

No issue here. 

 

Hi,

 

Thank you for replying.

I've double tested just now and seems 105 can destroy T90 again. Last time I tested after update it was only 70% damage can be delt to T90s group, which was very strange. I guess i have no more question for now.

Anyway, thanks for helping

 

Cheers!

[dmatsch]

has not the cluster munitions for all aircraft been bugged for the better part of a decade?  I don't remember these working properly at any time

Edited November 30, 2023 by dmatsch

[Hobel]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb dmatsch:

has not the cluster munitions for all aircraft been bugged for the better part of a decade?  I don't remember these working properly at any time

Currently 3 Skeets are needed for a t90 tank, with the current damage model it is good for the cbu97 as it is.  

Other cluster bombs are another topic

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, dmatsch said:

has not the cluster munitions for all aircraft been bugged for the better part of a decade?  I don't remember these working properly at any time

 

Sorry, that is not correct. If you have an issue please supply a track for us to take a look.