Jump to content

How does the damage system work for vehicles?


Recommended Posts

Yes, I can see it in Graviteam.  And no I can't see it in CM2.  There is no way to tell.  Steve says he doesn't play other games so him saying it is the most detailed doesn't mean much.

 

If I could see the underlying modeling or even the numbers used, I could be convinced.  But until then, I have some faith CM2 is good, but no proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

word

For the layman I suppose it becomes a philosophical difference of seeing is believing, versus taking a leap of faith.

For the more tech minded I suppose it is a huge database consisting maybe thousands of data-points driven by a code engine while none of them are visible but to less than some 5 people. 100% correct, balanced and realistic data is empirically impossible, thus prompts the question of... ignorance is bliss, or knowledge is power?

For the market driven and resource aware, it then is a question of whether it's worth it to showcase such a system to outlying customers which, of course, has been many times debated and time and time again vetoed.

I suppose tis one way to sum this up. ^_^

Edited by Skwabie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen lots of "going through the vehicle" penetrations in CM's WW2 titles without much damage or only some of the crew getting nabbed.

 

Devs said in past Graviteams model doesn't come near to what CM offers and I do believe that is true.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I can see it in Graviteam.  And no I can't see it in CM2.  There is no way to tell.  Steve says he doesn't play other games so him saying it is the most detailed doesn't mean much.

I agree that him saying "it's the most detailed" wouldn't mean much without a measure for comparison, not that not playing the game means he knows nothing about it; he might have seen the code/system laid out bare to analyse for all we know. But that isn't what he's saying when he (and his crew say, collectively, and I'm synthesising and paraphrasing), "Every polygon of every model has its own armour rating and angle, down to Brinell hardness and considering the characteristics known to us of modern composite armours, and every shot's precise characteristics including velocity, mass, net angle of impact in three dimensions, type, material and shape is compared to the rating of the exact point of impact. The behind-armour effects are determined by residual energy after penetration and the path of the shell or pyrotechnics through the 3-D model of the components of the vehicle modelled as best we can research them." I wonder what other considerations might be taken into account by any system you claim might be more detailed.

 

Unless you're saying BFC is lying because they distil the result down into "[Partial] Penetration [Armour Spalling]" and damaged subsystems rather than providing us with any access to the precise mechanics.

 

Of course, some of the numbers might be off, because there haven't been many real impacts for all combinations of round and defensive system, but that's a weakness for any simulator not built by and restricted to those with very secret knowledge.

 

Can you definitively say that GT uses the path of the penetrating round to determine which subsystems (including the meatware components) are affected? Or might it be that they model a greater number of discrete systems because they're using a "damage table" for behind-armour effects and it's easy to put a few more specific things into a table?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you definitively say that GT uses the path of the penetrating round to determine which subsystems (including the meatware components) are affected? Or might it be that they model a greater number of discrete systems because they're using a "damage table" for behind-armour effects and it's easy to put a few more specific things into a table?

 

I don't know about all their titles, but the armor modeling in Steel Fury and Steel Armor is simpler; they use a greyscale map alongside the normal texture to determine thickness in RHAe. So let's say you were modding in a Sherman and wanted to have a particular bit of 35mm thick armor, you'd set the RGB value to 35 on the greyscale map and the engine would calculate it as 35mm. Of course, you could do other stuff, like adding a track link on the front hull, then assign it an additional armor value via the greyscale map -- let's say 10mm RHAe -- and the engine is smart enough to take it as 15mm + front hull armor value, with all the associated downsides of slabbing armor.

 

As for damage modeling, it uses internal hitboxes with (I believe, I never got this far into the guts) a similar color-code for functionality. So engine, transmission, ammunition stowage, fuel tanks, vision blocks, suspension, roadwheels, links, drive sprockets, gun breech, gun barrel, turret drives, external weapons, different crew, etc. are all simulated.

 

War Thunder (Ground) has a similar system for damage (internal hitboxes) but its more advanced, with a full-out spalling simulation, interior "armor" of some components (spalling won't do much to a solid engine block, but the ricochets off the block might bounce around and brain your gunner), internal explosions, fires, oil leaks, power failures, etc. On top of that, it has a much more advanced armor model (compared to Graviteam) that does incorporate different types of armor, hardness, spaced armor, skirts, rudimentary anti-HEAT schemes, etc. The high point for me was when a 122mm HE round blew a spot welded slab of add-on armor off the front of my tank, while simultaneously knocking the two crewman directly behind the impact unconscious.

Edited by Apocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how does that compare to CM2?

 

I'm pretty sure (from what Steve has said) CMx2 is at or near the top when it comes to modeling the armor itself. The damage system does have room for specific subsystem damage. I saw on multiple occasions (testing the tank fighting positions) the Abrams' CROWS eat a sabot (hole decal and all) and show as redlined on the damaged subsystem display with nothing else damaged. However, I've had bizarre outcomes, like penetrating hits right through engine blocks leaving the engine perfectly intact. It seems like exterior systems (radios, machine guns, smoke launchers, etc.) have hitbox damage but interior stuff is dice roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons I am pushing back a little on claims is some of the very weird stuff I used to see in CMSF.  The one example that stands out is a rear hull hit by an RPG taking out weapon controls.

 

CM2 may have a system that is only one step removed from full blown reality...but it is only with faith that any player can say its the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the AAR I'd really like a CSI mode that would highlight the penetrations (maybe with a colored "pole" showing the axis of the strike) and the damage inflicted.  Sort of helpful in determining why one tank was destroyed, or just because I'm bored figuring out of if it's a total loss, or just a mission kill.  

 

Also it is just fun to go through the vehicles on the battlefied after a battle is over and take a look at what happened to them. Each of them has its own history told by the hit markings. I love doing that in Graviteam titles/Theatre of War 2!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons I am pushing back a little on claims is some of the very weird stuff I used to see in CMSF.  The one example that stands out is a rear hull hit by an RPG taking out weapon controls.

 

Yeah, sometimes weird results happen, and without a post-mortem damage analysis, we (as players) can't really say if it's just reality being unreal or something wrong with the modeling. I recall at one point a game with such a system realized that they'd modeled the gun components directly behind the mantlet by ten times; as a practical matter, it meant hits on the mantlet would always bounce -- any projectile from any aspect at any range. In CMx2's case, we'd just complain about mantlet's perceived effectiveness, Steve/Charles/etc. would shoot back that the mantlet's values were fine and so it would go until they looked deeper behind the scenes. On the other hand, I've seen stuff like a tank tilted right, turret trained out to the left which deflected a shot down into the track and immobilized the tank. People would scream bloody murder if you saw such a result in most wargames -- "How the hell does a non-penetrating turret hit take out my goddamned tracks?!" -- but **** happens.

 

That being said, I ran a quick test in CMBS because I do remember oddness with AFV damage in CMSF being a little too consistent for my liking. I got six good "test cases" out of it, being intact enough to take a look at damage and as it happened in the first case.

 

First case:

ipiF963.png

A few hits, none penetrating, one to the front upper hull, the rest to the right front turret. IR optics knocked out, that's fine, but immobilized? For the record, this tank is hull down and nothing landed lower than the upper front hull.

 

vMoIJbf.png

A few more non-penetrating hits to the turret strip off various exterior systems (laser warning system, smoke launcher, radio, CITV, etc.) but its only a partial penetration through the mantlet that knocks out the main gun and coax. Looks like locational damage is at least somewhat present and working well.

 

Second case:

Oum57xo.png

 

Mislabeled hit text or wrong location for decal, but that is minor. Due to the way the track is orientated, the shot would have traveled through the turret. It didn't do much except degrade the laser warning system with marginal degradation of the tracks. I don't know where the laser warning would be located inside the track for CMBS' purposes, so I guess that (other than the track damage) this is alright.

 

Third case:

kj20auu.png

 

OK, WTF? Upper front hull hit, deflected by reactive armor... but tank is immobilized due to track damage. I actually looked all over this tank for other hit decals, especially around the tracks, but could find nothing else. Other than the tracks being knocked out, the rest is fine.

 

Fourth case:

vHObTAn.png

 

Sole hit is high, just above the barrel sleeve, on one of the observation devices. OK, so locational damage isn't perfect in game; no redlined targeting, CITV or IR optics, but you do have a KO'd radio... and degraded track, yet again.

 

Fifth case:

dvY2f0a.png

Single hit just behind the Shtora "eye," mild exterior damage to the usual suspects, moderate damage to IR optics and tracks.

 

Sixth case:

jDdKH04.png

 

Two hits behind the Shtora's eye, both deflected by reactive armor. Shtora (labeled as "EO Jammer") is degraded but operational, in spite of having two rounds smack inches behind it and splatter. However, the track falls off, possibly out of fright?

 

As an additional datapoint, I've personally seen the CROWS take a sabot through-and-through, causing the system to be destroyed but leaving everything else on the tank in perfect working order. So, in conclusion, there is some degree of locational damage modeling as in the first case and to a lesser degree in the other five cases with exterior "soft" systems. That being said, there might be an issue with track damage being too common outside of actual hits on the lower hull or tracks themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WRT track damage: I get the impression in WW2 that external explosions degrade tracks: HEAT hits, non-penetrating APHE hits seem to cause track damage. Maybe there's a bug with ERA that's getting in the way, in that some of its detonations are being considered prejudicial to the running gear.

 

It's also worth noting that you can't always see the hit decal if it's hiding in the running gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see better internal subsystems modeling. Panzer Elite did a good job with that, if I'm remembering it correctly. Subsystems located as discrete boxes with damage tolerance/resistance. Also, some roof-mounted items could be damaged/torn away in a better manner.

 

Remember, we're talking a lot energy in small spaces with these things. All sorts of oddities will occur when there are penetrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This exact same issue was pointed out in CMSF.  Tracks and targeting systems getting taken out from hits in odd locations.  The main difference now is we have hit text and decals to get a better idea of where hits are actually happening.

 

There may be some random results (as there should be) but generally crew hits correspond to the penetration location, i.e. front hull is more likely to kill driver, turret is more likely to kill turret crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, up above I see someone mention that damage is random, then someone mentions its partially random, and below, it seems someone is saying its more detailed.  Does anyone know which it is?

I agree that him saying "it's the most detailed" wouldn't mean much without a measure for comparison, not that not playing the game means he knows nothing about it; he might have seen the code/system laid out bare to analyse for all we know. But that isn't what he's saying when he (and his crew say, collectively, and I'm synthesising and paraphrasing), "Every polygon of every model has its own armour rating and angle, down to Brinell hardness and considering the characteristics known to us of modern composite armours, and every shot's precise characteristics including velocity, mass, net angle of impact in three dimensions, type, material and shape is compared to the rating of the exact point of impact. The behind-armour effects are determined by residual energy after penetration and the path of the shell or pyrotechnics through the 3-D model of the components of the vehicle modelled as best we can research them." I wonder what other considerations might be taken into account by any system you claim might be more detailed.

 

Unless you're saying BFC is lying because they distil the result down into "[Partial] Penetration [Armour Spalling]" and damaged subsystems rather than providing us with any access to the precise mechanics.

 

Of course, some of the numbers might be off, because there haven't been many real impacts for all combinations of round and defensive system, but that's a weakness for any simulator not built by and restricted to those with very secret knowledge.

 

Can you definitively say that GT uses the path of the penetrating round to determine which subsystems (including the meatware components) are affected? Or might it be that they model a greater number of discrete systems because they're using a "damage table" for behind-armour effects and it's easy to put a few more specific things into a table?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is advantageous if it is a lightly protected IFV, but if your firing at an M1 or ERA equipped M2. Then hitting the centre mass will have little affect. When you say exposed, if the turret is available to be seen, will it fire at the turret or will still attempt to fire at the centre mass even if it is behind cover?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, up above I see someone mention that damage is random, then someone mentions its partially random, and below, it seems someone is saying its more detailed.  Does anyone know which it is?

 

What womble is talking about is where rounds hit ( external ) and what happens when they hit ( external ).

All that, is as detailed as it can be made to be.

 

Internal damage is, I think, semi-random.

Edited by Baneman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...