Detailed Damage Model For Ground Forces

I would like to suggest better, more realistic DM for things like tanks, APCs and trucks. Well... at least tanks if nothing else.

As it is right now, the DM for ground forces are a bit binary. They are either alive, or dead and in DCSW there is no such thing as a mobility kill (tracks/suspension/engine destroyed) or a mission kill (gun/optics destroyed).

I believe a more realistic DM for at least tanks would greatly improve gameplay and immersion.

Please voice your opinions in the poll above. Thanks.

I would say yes, but I would keep it simple as you suggested: 1. Unable to move (mobility "kill") 2. Unable to shoot 3. total kill.

It's still a flight sim.

I don't really care how they do it (CA damage models or munitions tweaking), but there should really be improved damage effects on targets. Anything that isn't a precision weapon seems quite handicapped to me currently. Of course I'm no expert on weapon effects.

I have to wonder who voted no as this is one of those things that should get unanimous agreement. Regardless, I think the real question is how high of a priority this should be. I consider the damage modeling (particularly of AI units) as the single biggest weakness in the core game right now. Thus it's #1 on my list of core improvements with AI flight models being #2.

It would be really good, a damage model like War thunder. But first we need a better physic, which the M1 Abrams is basically the same thing of T-90 and Leo 2. The CA needs improvements, about the physic, external models, or others details. Then they could make better damage models, because I wouldn't like drive the Abrams with a horrible physic. Vehicles that use tracks, looks like very old game.

I would say yes, but after aircraft damage models. For now planes need more love.

I voted no as they have more aircraft related work to complete. Then they can shift to ground forces.

I did not bother voting as polls, here, are a waste of time. However, as long as everything else is still a WIP then ground unit damage modeling should be pretty low on the priority list.

Its a combat simulator their fore in my mind the terminal effects of all our weapon systems should have the lethality and effects that we expect to the real world counterparts. That being said i think the Top 3 is the way to go as mentioned above. Mobility, Weapons and total kill.

I voted yes

Who wouldn't?

I would of course like to have detailed armor and systems damage modeling (like in WWII Online).

However, a quick and dirty upgrade would be sufficient. I don't care if the tracks or the engine is broken; it is enough to model that the unit is immobile. If the prisms are broken the gun can't fire, but we don't need that kind of detail, at least yet.

I say that there are about six states that should exist for a vehicle:

1)Unit is alive

2)Unit is alive, but unable to move

3)Unit is alive, but unable to fire

4)Unit is still alive, but damaged and will be destroyed after a random time (minutes, not seconds)

5)Unit is not alive, but not visually damaged.

6)Unit is destroyed

Currently the sim models only two states; alive or destroyed. But all of these could be scripted.

The main point is that there should variety on the effects of weapons. As you can see, states 2 to 6 can be caused by a single hit from a sufficiently efficient weapon. But in states 2 to 5 you might have to attack a second time, because the unit is not destroyed and you are uncertain.

Modeling fragments and blast damage can be simplified with probabilities very easily. Here is the real world example: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/dam_crit/dam_crit.htm

To put in DCS terms: Lets say a MK84 hits near a BMP. MK84 makes at maximum 2000 points of damage, the BMP has 1000 hitpoints.

So we might end up something like this:

5m: 90% chance of being destroyed, 95% chance of being unable to fire, 95% chance of being unable to move

10m:70% chance of being destroyed, 80% chance of being unable to fire, 80% chance of being unable to move

15m:50% chance of being destroyed, 60% chance of being unable to fire, 60% chance of being unable to move

20m:30% chance of being destroyed, 50% chance of being unable to fire, 50% chance of being unable to move

25m:15% chance of being destroyed, 40% chance of being unable to fire, 40% chance of being unable to move.

All of these could also be scripted with the probabilities and calculating the distance from the explosion. (unit in the zone of explosion)

I also would like to have that feature, but I'm not sure if it is possible. I think it would have a HUGE (depending on specific implementation) impact on performance and that is something I don't want. For the same reason we don't have such detailed damage modells for AI aircraft as we have them for player aircraft. So I decided not to vote.

I also would like to have that feature, but I'm not sure if it is possible. I think it would have a HUGE (depending on specific implementation) impact on performance and that is something I don't want. For the same reason we don't have such detailed damage modells for AI aircraft as we have them for player aircraft. So I decided not to vote.

War Thunder manages, and a damage model like War Thunder's (plus better vehicle physics, overhauled vehicles etc would be an amazing win win as well).

I requested this a while back but with the square root of nothing replies: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=153194

War Thunder manages, and a damage model like War Thunder's (plus better vehicle physics, overhauled vehicles etc would be an amazing win win as well).

 

I requested this a while back but with the square root of nothing replies: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=153194

I don't know much about War Thunder, but are you talking about AI forces or player controlled assets?

Besides that, it is a totally different game with a different engine and gameplay. Just because it is possible there doesn't mean it is possible here.

I don't know much about War Thunder, but are you talking about AI forces or player controlled assets?

 

Besides that, it is a totally different game with a different engine and gameplay. Just because it is possible there doesn't mean it is possible here.

Both - but yes - this means engine overhauls which is a lot of work, but hopefully, in the future perhaps? When everything else is done and dusted.

TBO they're not entirely different, not even totally different, DCS just has amazing flight mechanics and is set ahead of WWII (well until the WWII maps etc start rolling in). But as for penetration mechanics this is a good place to start, but it means serious engine overhauls [ame]

they're not entirely different, not even totally different

yet

it means serious engine overhauls

:doh:

that is exactly what TOTALLY DIFFERENT means when it comes to code, whether or not they both have airplanes actually means nothing.

yet

 

 

:doh:

that is exactly what TOTALLY DIFFERENT means when it comes to code, whether or not they both have airplanes actually means nothing.

Jeez, somebody clearly needs their eyes tested!

Firstly, read the first post in question, then read my one again. I'll even make your life easier here:

...it is a totally different game...

...this means engine overhauls which is a lot of work, but hopefully, in the future perhaps? When everything else is done and dusted.

 

TBO they're not entirely different, not even totally different...]

This, in case you failed to comprehend as you so clearly did is me disagreeing with QuiGon on the basis that DCS and War Thunder have actually quite fair bit in common, just like Battlefield and Arma have a fair bit in common, understand? That was the basis of the debate. This may amaze you but I do understand that DCS and War Thunder don't share the same engine, the same goes for Arma and Battlefield. But getting back on the subject at hand, if War Thunder and DCS shared the same code and engine then we would have the same penetration mechanics hence this thread would be null and void (duh). So next time avoid the straw man fallacy and please leave the patronising where it belongs.

Has ED's decision to work on the base game changed anything? Would this be a possibility now or no?