Soft skinned armed vehicles deeply needed

But we really need more soft skinned targets for our aerial rocket shooters. Shilkas and BMPs are a bit much.

We need at least a tripod mounted .50cal and .30cal, a truck mounted .50 and .30 cal, a truck mounted TOW, a truck mounted SPG-9 and of course regular towed artillery pieces (even if those are immobile) so that there are other targets besides trucks.

Ah oh, T-series tanks and BMP-series vehicles without missiles so that you don't have to mod them out in situation when they are overkill or not equipped in the first place.

I forgot ATGM teams that hide among the trees and you have to take them out with rockets and bombs. Tanks are easy to spot.

in general there are lots of missing niches

where are my grenade launchers for instance

no infantry/man portable AGS-30 or MK19??

ED pls

edit: the real problem i think is that the environment was designed around the KA-50 and later the A-10, which are far more "capable" platforms than what we got much later (huey, mi8, more light attack craft relying on iron bombs)

most of the ground attack stuff that came after the ka50/a10 get totally slaughtered in the murderously accurate AAA, and the armor / capability level of even insurgent forces is very high.

it feels like even the most capable platforms can barely use anything but standoff weapons. rockets on the A-10 at least are a total wash. the gun you can use because of it's very high range and accuracy, though.

Few versions ago, even S-5 was feasible against likes of BMPs, Bradleys etc. 500 kg bombs were also very powerful. Now S-5 won't even nick anything including soft vehicles unless you score a direct hit. I've seen infantry survive 30mm grenade launcher rounds going boom a few meters next to them. Not even that, even S-8 rockets don't seem to be what they were. So, with that damage model in mind, even if we had such platforms like techincals, etc, you'd have undying soft vehicles which can still .50 cal snipe you with current state of business :).

Edit : Though, I need to add, I'm not necceserily saying HE performance of earlier versions were realistic either. As far as tank shells go, HE shells were always deadlier against other tanks for example. And saturating an area with enough HE rockets usually meant you could reliably kill armored vehicles even up to tanks, without any direct hits. I hope a "happy medium" can be found between these behaviours. HE were a bit too potent against armor earlier in my opinion, now though, it is pretty weak even against softest targets.

our experiences are totally different then, because i've never had any luck killing heavier armor with rockets (even HEAT rockets, which won't kill them for the reason they simply don't hit anything, at least on the A-10)

it always seemed to me that the effective range of a BTR or a tank's AA machinegun was way longer than the effective range of rocket pods, but keep in mind i almost never use russian rockets so maybe that's the difference.

the m151 HE rocket on the A-10 has always been entirely worthless in my opinion, even before 1.5 which may have made it worse.

i tried to like them as in general i like rockets as a weapon and the A-10 seems uniquely well designed for getting in close to use them but they just have no effect on target unless modified

Hoping that maybe the 1944 stuff that's coming brings a couple of ground units. Something like the M13 or M16 MGMC. that could fit the light AA role.

More equipment to fill out the Insurgent side would be nice.

Technical trucks, and flatbed trucks with equipment.

our experiences are totally different then, because i've never had any luck killing heavier armor with rockets (even HEAT rockets, which won't kill them for the reason they simply don't hit anything, at least on the A-10)

 

it always seemed to me that the effective range of a BTR or a tank's AA machinegun was way longer than the effective range of rocket pods, but keep in mind i almost never use russian rockets so maybe that's the difference.

 

the m151 HE rocket on the A-10 has always been entirely worthless in my opinion, even before 1.5 which may have made it worse.

 

i tried to like them as in general i like rockets as a weapon and the A-10 seems uniquely well designed for getting in close to use them but they just have no effect on target unless modified

Well that would be the difference. I also always sucked with Hydra rockets. Funnily, since Mirage released and has them, I did get a few kills with them and had better success with them than I did with A-10 or Huey, but they have always been worse than S-8 rockets. I also was better with gun than with rockets on A-10, but been a really long time since I've flown the hog. Also, against infantry concentrations, A-10s rocket still did a good job though, at least back then. Lately, I've even had infantry survive near hits by Mi-8's 30mm grenades, multiple hits according to mission log from 7.62mm pods, and even HE S-8 rockets exploding at about 10ish meters.

Also, when you say "even HEAT rockets", you exactly made my point, HEAT rockets (KO and KOM in Russian rockets) usually did squat against armor (well you kinda need a direct hit with that sort of warhead so that is to be expected), but HE ones, especially S-8OFP2 was much more reliable for killing armor. That always gave me question marks. Actually, I have killed quite a few Leopard 2s, T-90s and Abrams with WW II vintage HVARs back in ye olde 1.2 :). Sure it was hard to hit anything with, but an accurate burst with enough near misses did heck of a lot damage. Those HVARs were almost like mini S-24s :D. Be it, RU or US, in my experience, HE rockets were always more reliable to kill armor (even tanks) with than HEAT ones, at least in earlier versions. Now, they both seem not to tickle unless you get direct hits or very nearly direct ones. That is fine, of course, on tanks or heavier AFVs. But, it also seem to be the case against soft targets now.

Same deal with bombs. Be it Mk-82, or even FAB-500, before 1.5.1, land one among a large group of IFVs, you'd get multiple kills or at least heavily damaged vehicles. Now, you need to be pretty accurate to get a kill or two with FAB-500, with 250kg class bombs like FAB-250 or Mk-82, a direct hit is pretty much required it seems.

In any case though, I sort of welcome this, as it at least means there is some work going on with damage models and weapon lethalty / different effects of warhead types etc. Let us hope it will end positively soon :).

That said however, I agree with gist of original post, some lightly armed / soft(ish) skinned targets would be very welcome additions for both old aircraft and light attack aircraft that are coming up in numbers lately. But, even then, with how ground gunnery AI seem to comprise of force sensitive jedi/sith, and how HE weaponry currently behave, I'm not sure if the change would be that dramatic even aganist those.

i've noticed some positive changes in this area recently in that vehicles appear to be missing me now (that never happened before)

in any case, a technical with a 7.62 machine gun isn't much of a threat to a heli, due to it's range, let alone a hawg who could probably eat a hundred or so rounds without much trouble.

the real trouble is the ZU-23/30/40mm guns on the APCs as the range is just too high for the more basic rocketboat helis/planes to handle without getting shredded.

i think it would help to diversify the insurgent weapons. add technicals, improvised rockets, heavy machine gun teams and ATGMs and you could make more reasonable missions for non-hawgs.

The real problem is warhead implementation. AFAIK all warheads are equal in DCS.

So if you get realistic results for rocket/shell A, you will get over or underpowered rockets of type B.

Unfortunately this won't change until ED starts to actually model the warheads correctly.

Which in turn probably means we need to model armour correctly as well.

(or atleast rudimentary armor classes for MBT, hardened shelter, AFV's, infantry, etc etc)

Meaning that it's gonna be a huge undertaking to fix it all properly, without having any real return on investment from a company's perspective.

Nice example would be the BETAP 500 SHP, a bomb designed to pierce x amount of concrete by means of rocket propulsion before exploding.

Though, if you put an ammunition bunker ingame its damn near impossible to take out whit either regular FAB 500 bombs or the BETAP 500 SHP.

Where as the latter, should be able to take out such a bunker whit a single direct hit.

(it should also work great for blasting huge craters into runways)

Well, for Bluefor you have all the various flavors of HMWVs, and for Redfor you have at least one armored car, and the truck (Kamaz? Ural?) with a ZSU-23 on the back.

So there are soft armed vehicles in game if you want them.

Not as fast and light as a technical, but DCS really aims more at high intensity warfare than at counter-insurgency.

By the way, we also need Sagger ATMG teams. Preferably as a mobile infantry unit that will set up in a minute. These would we a really needed and a fun enemy.

We can mod the sh*t out of aircraft but we can't mod the vehicles or infantry, is that correct?

Lots of vehicle mods Bezecls, Ranger 79 IIRC are just 2 :)

Hi,

I have some "Wolf" in work, equipped with MG3, .50 and Milan AT.

Those look awesome!

I wish they were standard, so mods were not required.

Whats needed imo is this:

- Technicals of various types (DshK, SPG-9)

- Better infantry overall with better animations and with a realistic damage model.

- Better simulation of fragmentation effects from explosions.

- Better simulation of partially knocked out vehicles, not is unit alive = true/false but rather mission kills where the crew abandons them for whatever reason.

Example: A 250 kg bomb hits 15 meters to the right of a Ural truck, the truck gets peppered by shrapnel and although the crew is largely fine the engine block is dead. Crew abandons vehicle.

Example 2: A BMP-2 gets strafed by S-5 rockets and get peppered by shrapnel, external optics is damaged, a track breaks lose from its drive wheels. Crew abandons vehicle.

This isn't even hard to do, you don't need a complex damage model to simulate this sort of thing.

If all the above is implemented, playing Light Attack, COIN & transport helicopters could be ton of fun! As it stands, they are not rewarding at all to play.

Whats needed imo is this:

 

- Better simulation of partially knocked out vehicles, not is unit alive = true/false but rather mission kills where the crew abandons them for whatever reason.

Mobility kills and firepower kills

Whats needed imo is this:

 

 

 

- Technicals of various types (DshK, SPG-9)

 

- Better infantry overall with better animations and with a realistic damage model.

 

- Better simulation of fragmentation effects from explosions.

 

- Better simulation of partially knocked out vehicles, not is unit alive = true/false but rather mission kills where the crew abandons them for whatever reason.

 

 

 

Example: A 250 kg bomb hits 15 meters to the right of a Ural truck, the truck gets peppered by shrapnel and although the crew is largely fine the engine block is dead. Crew abandons vehicle.

 

 

 

Example 2: A BMP-2 gets strafed by S-5 rockets and get peppered by shrapnel, external optics is damaged, a track breaks lose from its drive wheels. Crew abandons vehicle.

 

 

 

This isn't even hard to do, you don't need a complex damage model to simulate this sort of thing.

 

 

 

If all the above is implemented, playing Light Attack, COIN & transport helicopters could be ton of fun! As it stands, they are not rewarding at all to play.

+1 for this

I love light attack choppers and planes but rockets are quite crap for now

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mobility kills and firepower kills

And this wouldn't even require complex system and damage modelling. Compared to the current 0/1 damage state, it would be much better if the units stopped moving when at 50% damage, stopped firing when at 80% damage and are destroyed at 100% damage.

This way you would sometimes get mobility kills, even with rockets. You couldn't distinguish the non-firing immobile units from live ones, so you might have to attack them again just to be sure.

And this wouldn't even require complex system and damage modelling. Compared to the current 0/1 damage state, it would be much better if the units stopped moving when at 50% damage, stopped firing when at 80% damage and are destroyed at 100% damage.

 

This way you would sometimes get mobility kills, even with rockets. You couldn't distinguish the non-firing immobile units from live ones, so you might have to attack them again just to be sure.

The health bar needs to go, and shouldnt dictate what's damaged on the tank.

Let me start by saying Ed has done an excellent job in this sim overall and that I would gladly and definitely buy an accurate damage model module/faction upgrade...

It simply blows me away how primitive the damage model is in DCS. I guess for the most part I overlooked it because it requires so much knowledge to focused on flying the aircraft but the fact that this is a digital "Combat" simulator which we hope is designed with "Combat"in mind an not taking a back seat to it. I thought it was as pretty much a given that damage was modeled on other targets an npc's were given similar love as the modules but after reading this post it makes a real wonder how much i overlooked it. I must say ED and all third parties have done a great job on each of the aircraft were having well modeled damage models, but the units we blow up would surely need it as well. i just figured they would try to have a similar standard for other vehicles and npc units eventually which leads me to wonder why hasn't a third party considered making a module out of a whole faction with upgraded damage models in the sim! that would be fantastic module! what do you guys think? It would be nice to see a vote an have a current up to date wish list that changes according to votes about current issues like this an others does one exist? I know there is a wishlist but one that has current votes on each one would be cooler and possible time/cost predictions added would be really cool to see what others think. Considering how much effort was put into missiles in DCS in the past that I have read about I would gladly pay to develop this part of the sim and make it more rewarding and fun for all aircraft planes and Helios alike, I believe others would too!

The Kord HMG from the Mi-8 would be perfect in this use. Please add truck-mounted and tripod mounted versions

Let me start by saying Ed has done an excellent job in this sim overall and that I would gladly and definitely buy an accurate damage model module/faction upgrade...

It simply blows me away how primitive the damage model is in DCS. I guess for the most part I overlooked it because it requires so much knowledge to focused on flying the aircraft but the fact that this is a digital "Combat" simulator which we hope is designed with "Combat"in mind an not taking a back seat to it. I thought it was as pretty much a given that damage was modeled on other targets an npc's were given similar love as the modules but after reading this post it makes a real wonder how much i overlooked it. I must say ED and all third parties have done a great job on each of the aircraft were having well modeled damage models, but the units we blow up would surely need it as well. i just figured they would try to have a similar standard for other vehicles and npc units eventually which leads me to wonder why hasn't a third party considered making a module out of a whole faction with upgraded damage models in the sim! that would be fantastic module! what do you guys think? It would be nice to see a vote an have a current up to date wish list that changes according to votes about current issues like this an others does one exist? I know there is a wishlist but one that has current votes on each one would be cooler and possible time/cost predictions added would be really cool to see what others think. Considering how much effort was put into missiles in DCS in the past that I have read about I would gladly pay to develop this part of the sim and make it more rewarding and fun for all aircraft planes and Helios alike, I believe others would too!

problem is that something like damage modelling has to be universal for all players, so it can't be an optional payware dlc. lacking the promise of revenue it becomes a rather unpalatable proposition for a 3rd party developer.

What you think of this pack?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=146210&highlight=zpu