System damage for ships

[FalcoGer]

Right now naval combat is in a weird spot.

Some developers opt to model damage after mission kills (JF17, Viggen) while others (stock AGM-88, AGM-84D) model after sinking.

 

Modern warships are quite difficult to sink and the bigger ones require multiple heavyweight torpedoes to break their spine. What's the job of an anti ship missile then? It's not meant to sink a ship.

 

If you have a look at

 

You can clearly see that the ship is still floating after having been hit with a harpoon.

The point is that this ship is not going anywhere, nor is it shooting any more weapons. It's a mission kill.

 

Yet in DCS system damage is not modeled for ships. While visually parts of the hull can be missing, it's impossible to destroy the actual systems. This can easily be verified by shooting a tank gun at a ship at various parts. You can't destroy the radar, guns, arm launchers, much less so the older russian models' missile tubes. Any single hit against those delicate systems should be an immediate failure.

 

Where does this leave us? We're stuck shooting dozens of harpoons to kill a ship. While this might be realistic in terms of sinking a ship, it's complete nonsense. On the other hand 3 or 4 hits with an RB15 will sink almost anything while it's warhead is even slightly smaller than the harpoon's, which is also nonsense. ARMs are completely useless with their blast fragmentation warheads designed to take out delicate radar equipment, not massive ships.

 

What we need is individual components and systems on a ship that can be killed. It doesn't even need to be anything complicated. Just place some points on the ship to indicate where systems are located and add a radius around the impact point of various weapons that would knock such systems out. Obvious candidates are: Radar (S&T), Engine, CIWS, Guns and missile launchers (Arm and VLS). That would leave the largest of ships with around 20-30 points that need to be checked whenever a weapon hits, which will take up almost no cpu resources at all. Later this can be expanded upon with visual damage (ie. broken models of components), hit points, things being able to be repaired by the crew over time (unless completely destroyed or infeasible to be repaired of course) and more.

 

But even the simplest system would be a massive addition to naval combat. Please take a few days to implement something like that.

[KomandorAdam]

Such a model of destruction of warships and ships is at the level of games that were released 25 years ago. It needs a major overhaul, you are absolutely right. Hopefully this will become one of ED proitets.

[StevanJ]

28 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

Right now naval combat is in a weird spot.

Some developers opt to model damage after mission kills (JF17, Viggen) while others (stock AGM-88, AGM-84D) model after sinking.

 

Modern warships are quite difficult to sink and the bigger ones require multiple heavyweight torpedoes to break their spine. What's the job of an anti ship missile then? It's not meant to sink a ship.

 

If you have a look at

 

You can clearly see that the ship is still floating after having been hit with a harpoon.

The point is that this ship is not going anywhere, nor is it shooting any more weapons. It's a mission kill.

 

Yet in DCS system damage is not modeled for ships. While visually parts of the hull can be missing, it's impossible to destroy the actual systems. This can easily be verified by shooting a tank gun at a ship at various parts. You can't destroy the radar, guns, arm launchers, much less so the older russian models' missile tubes. Any single hit against those delicate systems should be an immediate failure.

 

Where does this leave us? We're stuck shooting dozens of harpoons to kill a ship. While this might be realistic in terms of sinking a ship, it's complete nonsense. On the other hand 3 or 4 hits with an RB15 will sink almost anything while it's warhead is even slightly smaller than the harpoon's, which is also nonsense. ARMs are completely useless with their blast fragmentation warheads designed to take out delicate radar equipment, not massive ships.

 

What we need is individual components and systems on a ship that can be killed. It doesn't even need to be anything complicated. Just place some points on the ship to indicate where systems are located and add a radius around the impact point of various weapons that would knock such systems out. Obvious candidates are: Radar (S&T), Engine, CIWS, Guns and missile launchers (Arm and VLS). That would leave the largest of ships with around 20-30 points that need to be checked whenever a weapon hits, which will take up almost no cpu resources at all. Later this can be expanded upon with visual damage (ie. broken models of components), hit points, things being able to be repaired by the crew over time (unless completely destroyed or infeasible to be repaired of course) and more.

 

But even the simplest system would be a massive addition to naval combat. Please take a few days to implement something like that.

This is constantly repeated in this forum, the damage model need to be applicated to not only ships, but buildings, aircraft, and ground vehicles.
Id love to see ships, modelled correctly, but honestly- Even dropping a 2000' pounder near a tank, should result in damage to tracks, systems, and mechanicals..

[Northstar98]

Agreed, and it doesn't have to be anything like as complex as the WWII damage model.

We are also missing a buoyancy model too (as in, something to the tune of Cold Waters), right now ships sink the exact same way regardless of where and how much damage was sustained, though it doesn't have to be super complicated either.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Tippis]

Copypasta time!  

 

Fundamentally, the problem is that the damage application 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.

 

ED have already indicated that they're working on a ground vehicle damage model update Later™, so this kind of stopgap isn't likely to happen and thus not worth a full wishlist thread, but at least that last point will still need to happen.

[cfrag]

Very nice analysis of the current apparent state of affairs (it's not only ships as the OP rightfully laments, ground units suffer from the same problem, its just that with ships it's much more noticeable because you need to expend a whole warehouse full of munitions to shut them up, and as long as they still float, they'll sniper you at night, through heavy fog at 12 miles in gale-force winds) - thanks for that!

 

I'd like to propose a number of small amendments:

 

14 hours ago, Tippis said:

• The hitpoint pile is still there because it's too much effort to get rid of it.

 

Tbh, the hitpoint measure reeks of a rushed programming job - a one-size-fits-all method to quickly create units and make them appear to be somewhat different from each other and to imply diversity where there really is none - in a game written a couple of decades ago (cough LOMA cough). Hit points were used as a rough measure to indicate toughness/resilience, and still *is* useful for what is called 'trash mobs' in modern RPG. Let's take a page out of those more modern games (especially RPGs) that have invested lots of time into this to make the game more refined. The hit points should still be something to express overall health - but let's take advantage of a modern, object oriented approach to units. Don't use health as an index into what functions fail, that's still old-school unit thinking (not that I'm against that, I am old-school ) . All units should have standard components for: hull/frame, self-repair, power train (production, transmission), communications, propulsion, detection, and offensive. Basic units like infantry can continue as they are now (i.e. their components simply aren't implemented in code and therefore do nothing - hence they don't use processing power). And all units die when their hit points go below 1. More complex units should implement/subclass some of their components, and start modelling resistances to damage types (blast radius, which also needs fixing) as well as susceptibilities. This approach allows us to work on a sliding scale of complexity, and can be iterated over multiple releases due to the magic of OOP that allows objects can inherit from their base classes. Let's start with the Hummer - it only models propulsion that fails once damage to the frame exceeds 30% - very simple (and still old-school). Now add a radar truck: it inherits from Hummer in that it loses propulsion at some point, but also loses detection when it receives a certain number of hit points due to blast or fire damage (but not bullets) they receive to the top 50% of their hit box. And so on. We'll gradually work up the slope of complexity until we get to units like ships that have multiple redundant components that interact and implement special vulnerabilities - yet they are still descendants from the base unit. Ships *are* Hip Point Sinks, and they react with complex behavior depending on what hit them, where, and when. So it would be possible to make a ship lose propulsion, and long-range detection capabilities, but it would still float with almost 90% health. Or - if you are unlucky and hit everything but the important spots - it could be at 25% health, unable to move but still able to detect and fire at you. Or - your hits damage multiple critical systems at once, rendering the unit a sitting duck like the Sheffield 1982. So yeah, I want hit points to see when it's dead. But independent of that, we need components able to fail independent of overall health, and dependent on how damage was inflicted.   

 

14 hours ago, Tippis said:

• 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.

 

Great idea! Perhaps not provide triggers itself, but a way to query standard components (like we can with unit:getLife() today) and offer that as parameters to query in a trigger similar to how we query flags  

Edited October 2, 2021 by cfrag

[Northstar98]

Personally, I don't think there should be an overall health for units, it should instead solely be a factor of what components are damaged and what their effects are, exactly like aircraft.

So with ships, you could have compartments, and a flooding model (doesn't have to be super complicated), and if enough compartments flood sufficiently it sinks.

Where it maybe gets more complicated is simulating damage control and fire propagation.

What DCS needs to do is track which components are destroyed, and use that to gauge success.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[StevanJ]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

Very nice analysis of the current apparent state of affairs (it's not only ships as the OP rightfully laments, ground units suffer from the same problem, its just that with ships it's much more noticeable because you need to expend a whole warehouse full of munitions to shut them up, and as long as they still float, they'll sniper you at night, through heavy fog at 12 miles in gale-force winds) - thanks for that!

 

I'd like to propose a number of small amendments:

 

 

Tbh, the hitpoint measure reeks of a rushed programming job - a one-size-fits-all method to quickly create units and make them appear to be somewhat different from each other and to imply diversity where there really is none - in a game written a couple of decades ago (cough LOMA cough). Hit points were used as a rough measure to indicate toughness/resilience, and still *is* useful for what is called 'trash mobs' in modern RPG. Let's take a page out of those more modern games (especially RPGs) that have invested lots of time into this to make the game more refined. The hit points should still be something to express overall health - but let's take advantage of a modern, object oriented approach to units. Don't use health as an index into what functions fail, that's still old-school unit thinking (not that I'm against that, I am old-school ) . All units should have standard components for: hull/frame, self-repair, power train (production, transmission), communications, propulsion, detection, and offensive. Basic units like infantry can continue as they are now (i.e. their components simply aren't implemented in code and therefore do nothing - hence they don't use processing power). And all units die when their hit points go below 1. More complex units should implement/subclass some of their components, and start modelling resistances to damage types (blast radius, which also needs fixing) as well as susceptibilities. This approach allows us to work on a sliding scale of complexity, and can be iterated over multiple releases due to the magic of OOP that allows objects can inherit from their base classes. Let's start with the Hummer - it only models propulsion that fails once damage to the frame exceeds 30% - very simple (and still old-school). Now add a radar truck: it inherits from Hummer in that it loses propulsion at some point, but also loses detection when it receives a certain number of hit points due to blast or fire damage (but not bullets) they receive to the top 50% of their hit box. And so on. We'll gradually work up the slope of complexity until we get to units like ships that have multiple redundant components that interact and implement special vulnerabilities - yet they are still descendants from the base unit. Ships *are* Hip Point Sinks, and they react with complex behavior depending on what hit them, where, and when. So it would be possible to make a ship lose propulsion, and long-range detection capabilities, but it would still float with almost 90% health. Or - if you are unlucky and hit everything but the important spots - it could be at 25% health, unable to move but still able to detect and fire at you. Or - your hits damage multiple critical systems at once, rendering the unit a sitting duck like the Sheffield 1982. So yeah, I want hit points to see when it's dead. But independent of that, we need components able to fail independent of overall health, and dependent on how damage was inflicted.   

 

 

Great idea! Perhaps not provide triggers itself, but a way to query standard components (like we can with unit:getLife() today) and offer that as parameters to query in a trigger similar to how we query flags  

 

Hey man, Any chance you can break any future discussions into paragraphs and breaks? While im sure youve got alot of cool things to say, when you scrunch all your discussion up into a huge ball like this, it makes it VERY difficult to read.

If you could add just a few breaks and a few new paragraphs youd be doing us all a huge solid, and you might find you get a lot more likes as people will probably commit to reading what you have to say.

Cheers
 

[Seaeagle]

23 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

Right now naval combat is in a weird spot.

Some developers opt to model damage after mission kills (JF17, Viggen) while others (stock AGM-88, AGM-84D) model after sinking.

 

Modern warships are quite difficult to sink and the bigger ones require multiple heavyweight torpedoes to break their spine. What's the job of an anti ship missile then? It's not meant to sink a ship.

 

If you have a look at

 

You can clearly see that the ship is still floating after having been hit with a harpoon.

The point is that this ship is not going anywhere, nor is it shooting any more weapons. It's a mission kill.

 

Yet in DCS system damage is not modeled for ships. While visually parts of the hull can be missing, it's impossible to destroy the actual systems. This can easily be verified by shooting a tank gun at a ship at various parts. You can't destroy the radar, guns, arm launchers, much less so the older russian models' missile tubes. Any single hit against those delicate systems should be an immediate failure.

 

Where does this leave us? We're stuck shooting dozens of harpoons to kill a ship. While this might be realistic in terms of sinking a ship, it's complete nonsense. On the other hand 3 or 4 hits with an RB15 will sink almost anything while it's warhead is even slightly smaller than the harpoon's, which is also nonsense. ARMs are completely useless with their blast fragmentation warheads designed to take out delicate radar equipment, not massive ships.

 

What we need is individual components and systems on a ship that can be killed. It doesn't even need to be anything complicated. Just place some points on the ship to indicate where systems are located and add a radius around the impact point of various weapons that would knock such systems out. Obvious candidates are: Radar (S&T), Engine, CIWS, Guns and missile launchers (Arm and VLS). That would leave the largest of ships with around 20-30 points that need to be checked whenever a weapon hits, which will take up almost no cpu resources at all. Later this can be expanded upon with visual damage (ie. broken models of components), hit points, things being able to be repaired by the crew over time (unless completely destroyed or infeasible to be repaired of course) and more.

 

But even the simplest system would be a massive addition to naval combat. Please take a few days to implement something like that.

 

All good observations and suggestions - except perhaps for this little bit:

 

Quote

You can't destroy the radar, guns, arm launchers, much less so the older russian models' missile tubes. Any single hit against those delicate systems should be an immediate failure.

The large Russian missile tubes are armoured, so unlike the other items you mentioned(radars/sensors) they are not particulary "delicate" .

 

Anyway, ships also lack multiple defensive meassures(ECM, countermeassures etc), just as their employment of defensive armament is quite simplistic, so if the aim is for a more realistic naval warfare implementation, better damage modelling is not enough.

 

Edited October 2, 2021 by Seaeagle

[Tippis]

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Personally, I don't think there should be an overall health for units, it should instead solely be a factor of what components are damaged and what their effects are, exactly like aircraft.

 

So with ships, you could have compartments, and a flooding model (doesn't have to be super complicated), and if enough compartments flood sufficiently it sinks.

 

Where it maybe gets more complicated is simulating damage control and fire propagation.

 

What DCS needs to do is track which components are destroyed, and use that to guage success.

Ideally, and in the long run, yes. The point of my standard copypasta is that it can be done now, universally (or at least based on very broad categories), with pretty minimal effort. The only tricky bit lies in moving the death state to much earlier in the process, since odds are that, once dead, units stop being processed and thus the whole burning and exploding bit might cease to function.

 

All the components are there already; all the limits and effects are there (albeit in the wrong order); and it gets us at least 50% there, which is a pretty massive gain for so little work.  

Something needs to happen, and I'm not sure a full rework of the everythings will come within any reasonable amount of time. A quick and ugly fix would, for once, be a pretty good thing.

[FalcoGer]

5 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

 

All good observations and suggestions - except perhaps for this little bit:

 

The large Russian missile tubes are armoured, so unlike the other items you mentioned(radars/sensors) they are not particulary "delicate" .

 

Anyway, ships also lack multiple defensive meassures(ECM, countermeassures etc), just as their employment of defensive armament is quite simplistic, so if the aim is for a more realistic naval warfare implementation, better damage modelling is not enough.

 

 

 

Of course I'd love to see more details like ship ECM, smoke, chaff, flares, etc, but DCS is just not focused on that stuff. I'd love if we could just blow them up properly next spring rather than having a complete overhaul like the ATC that's been promised since 2018 or maybe even sooner (I forgot) and never got anywhere since.

Edited October 2, 2021 by FalcoGer

[Seaeagle]

On 10/2/2021 at 10:08 PM, FalcoGer said:

Of course I'd love to see more details like ship ECM, smoke, chaff, flares, etc, but DCS is just not focused on that stuff.

No sadly, which is why better damage modelling for them isn't addressed either :) .

 

On 10/2/2021 at 10:08 PM, FalcoGer said:

I'd love if we could just blow them up properly next spring rather than having a complete overhaul like the ATC that's been promised since 2018 or maybe even sooner (I forgot) and never got anywhere since.

I understand, but I read your initial post about damage modelling as a realism complaint - which I agree with. But making it easier to disable ships' combat endurance by taking out individual systems, while not giving them the defensive meassures they currently lack and thus proper ability to defend themselves, has nothing to do with realism.

[FalcoGer]

What I'm saying is it can be done one step at a time. Not that it shouldn't be done. Do the easy stuff first and quick, then work on the more complicated stuff over time. Anything is an improvement over what we have right now.

[upyr1]

Eagle really needs to do an overhaul of their naval assets, which is why I keep suggesting that Eagle should do a Naval module. If it were to be done right Eagle would need to make improvements to the ships in DCS core while providing a better interface for controlling the ships. One of the main problems with DCS is the simple fact Eagle's biggest concerns are with DCS as a flight simulator.  Even though they are not in game (yet) I think the first ships to receive improved damage models or ecm models would be the 1980s version Iowa-class battleships. Though I would expect to see older fittings as well.  

In general I would agree the ideal damage system would be something like this

On 10/2/2021 at 4:31 AM, Northstar98 said:

Personally, I don't think there should be an overall health for units, it should instead solely be a factor of what components are damaged and what their effects are, exactly like aircraft.

 

So with ships, you could have compartments, and a flooding model (doesn't have to be super complicated), and if enough compartments flood sufficiently it sinks.

 

Where it maybe gets more complicated is simulating damage control and fire propagation.

 

What DCS needs to do is track which components are destroyed, and use that to gauge success.

 

though we'll have to see armor modeled, which is the reason for using the Iowas. 

20 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

What I'm saying is it can be done one step at a time. Not that it shouldn't be done. Do the easy stuff first and quick, then work on the more complicated stuff over time. Anything is an improvement over what we have right now.

That's how programing tends to work. Get something working then add something else

[Tank50us]

32 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Eagle really needs to do an overhaul of their naval assets, which is why I keep suggesting that Eagle should do a Naval module. If it were to be done right Eagle would need to make improvements to the ships in DCS core while providing a better interface for controlling the ships. One of the main problems with DCS is the simple fact Eagle's biggest concerns are with DCS as a flight simulator.  Even though they are not in game (yet) I think the first ships to receive improved damage models or ecm models would be the 1980s version Iowa-class battleships. Though I would expect to see older fittings as well.  

 

Maybe the solution is for a team to be put together with the expressed purpose of building a proper naval module for DCS. However, if it were me running it I'd make it where the ships 'hull' is universal, and things are added or removed to simulate the ship during different parts of its life. Using the Iowas as an example, their WW2 and Korean War era fits aren't that far off from one another, but otherwise look the same. However by the time the Gulf War came around, the Iowas were completely different beasts to what they were when they first entered the Pacific.

 

The way I see that looking is that you'd have (as an example), a 'station' for each of the turrets, a station for the forward super structure, a station for the aft super structure, and a station for the fantail (which is either a helicopter landing deck, Seaplane Catapult, or the 'battle carrier' conversion idea, which auto-removes Turret 3). The turret stations could switch out to model the changes to the fire control (the guns stayed the same, but the Fire Control saw improvements). Done correctly, this would, again, allow the mission designer to represent the ship in whichever configuration is appropriate for the time period, or, if they're running a campaign, better represent damage to the ship if it wasn't sunk in previous missions (such as removing a turret to represent that turret being destroyed), or any number of possible scenarios. Granted, it probably wouldn't work for all ships, since some only ever had a single configuration throughout their service life, but for those that saw major changes throughout a very length service life, I think it would be a unique way to represent the ship class as a whole. It's certainly worth looking into as a possibility, right?

[upyr1]

14 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

Maybe the solution is for a team to be put together with the expressed purpose of building a proper naval module for DCS.

I've been saying this for a while, with the suggestion of DCS Fleet Ops. 

 

14 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

However, if it were me running it I'd make it where the ships 'hull' is universal, and things are added or removed to simulate the ship during different parts of its life. Using the Iowas as an example, their WW2 and Korean War era fits aren't that far off from one another, but otherwise look the same. However, by the time the Gulf War came around, the Iowas were completely different beasts to what they were when they first entered the Pacific.

14 hours ago, Tank50us said:

The way I see that looking is that you'd have (as an example), a 'station' for each of the turrets, a station for the forward super structure, a station for the aft super structure, and a station for the fantail (which is either a helicopter landing deck, Seaplane Catapult, or the 'battle carrier' conversion idea, which auto-removes Turret 3). The turret stations could switch out to model the changes to the fire control (the guns stayed the same, but the Fire Control saw improvements). Done correctly, this would, again, allow the mission designer to represent the ship in whichever configuration is appropriate for the time period, or, if they're running a campaign, better represent damage to the ship if it wasn't sunk in previous missions (such as removing a turret to represent that turret being destroyed), or any number of possible scenarios. Granted, it probably wouldn't work for all ships, since some only ever had a single configuration throughout their service life, but for those that saw major changes throughout a very length service life, I think it would be a unique way to represent the ship class as a whole. It's certainly worth looking into as a possibility, right?

This would work great for the Iowas here is a brief summery of the evolution

Korea the catapults were removed so they could operate helicopters

 

Vietnam The New Jeresy had all her 40MM and 20MM AA removed 

the 40MM tubs had pools I'm sure there were changes to the radars

In the 1980s there would be tomahawk and harpoon missiles.

 

[Silver_Dragon]

On 10/6/2021 at 4:06 AM, upyr1 said:

I've been saying this for a while, with the suggestion of DCS Fleet Ops. 

 

This would work great for the Iowas here is a brief summery of the evolution

Korea the catapults were removed so they could operate helicopters

 

Vietnam The New Jeresy had all her 40MM and 20MM AA removed 

the 40MM tubs had pools I'm sure there were changes to the radars

In the 1980s there would be tomahawk and harpoon missiles.

 

Sorry to reply them today, but that assuption has totaly incorrect... Actual missiles has more destructive with other WW2 weapons and the WW2 ships has the same damage structure with a modern ships, only change has a WW2 heavy ship was armored and actual has very light and some constructive methods as use aluminium or other, the damage controy and the actual fire control (a 1st, 2md Gen on a WW2 ship and 5-6 gen automatic actually on more modern units)

About Iowa BB, was 4 versions and was not only remove AAA and put missiles.

 

[upyr1]

53 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Sorry to reply them today, but that assuption has totaly incorrect... Actual missiles has more destructive with other WW2 weapons and the WW2 ships has the same damage structure with a modern ships, only change has a WW2 heavy ship was armored and actual has very light and some constructive methods as use aluminium or other, the damage controy and the actual fire control (a 1st, 2md Gen on a WW2 ship and 5-6 gen automatic actually on more modern units)

When people are saying things that  state World War ships would have a more complex damage model than modern they are talking about the need to model armor. Right now all the ships need a more complex model than the simple HP based system we have.

 

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

About Iowa BB, was 4 versions and was not only remove AAA and put missiles.

I know I skipped the electronics upgrades as I was focused on the weapons. 

[Silver_Dragon]

51 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

When people are saying things that  state World War ships would have a more complex damage model than modern they are talking about the need to model armor. Right now all the ships need a more complex model than the simple HP based system we have.

 

I know I skipped the electronics upgrades as I was focused on the weapons. 

That was discust in the past. build a complex "Ship Advanced damage model" has very masive with include not only "system damage", that request flodding, fire and damage control. You need rebuild them from scratch, a situation x10 or x100 compared with the actual air damage mode.

[upyr1]

2 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

That was discust in the past. build a complex "Ship Advanced damage model" has very masive with include not only "system damage", that request flodding, fire and damage control. You need rebuild them from scratch, a situation x10 or x100 compared with the actual air damage mode.

I know that will not be an easy task, which is one the reasons I think naval modules might be a good way to solve the problem. It will cost Eagle a lot of moneyh do go through and start the damage model from scratch. Simply making those changes free in DCS core might not be the best investment for Eagle, however making the changes as part of developing a naval module might be a great investment.