Rmh Rg

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I'm wondering.
1/ Normally anti-armor weapons are not WC = 8 or 18.
Is it possible the code is doing something weird when it sees AP Pen = 222 and is suppose to use the HEAT Pen rating vs armor?
Or possibly when a weapon is WC = 8 or 18 is the HE Kill rating being used vs armor is some way it "shouldn't be"?

2/ Also, for a normal SMAW the HEAT Pen = 60.
Is there some code reason it's halved for the SMAW-NE version?

1/ It's a flame weapon so the 999 pen kicks in sometimes which means all that liquid fire found it's way into places that make life unpleasant for anyone inside a bunker or a tank. That's the most likely " something weird" you see. Go do some tests against tanks with normal flamethrowers and tell me what happens.

I won't say there isn't something going on with the code that make things not work right BUT if the weapon is given HE pen and HEAT pen and the AP pen is 222 then the HE pen is used when HE is fired and the HEAT pen is used when AP or HEAT is fired just like every other weapon. We have yet to determine *IF* there is any difference in the code for WC-8 vs WC-18 besides in game graphics but the *one* ( 1 ) test I ran quick this morning *seems* to indicate there is but one test means squat.

2/ NO IDEA why. Right now I'd say it's an error but I'm sorry to say I don't keep a detailed record of how all the 15,000+ weapons in the game got to be the way they did. I know everyone thinks I should but I don't. If you have stats on what the HEAT pen of these weapons is supposed to be please pass them on.,

Don

[Suhiir]

OK, here's what I found on the Mk 153 SMAW.
The Mk 6 Mod 0 High Explosive Anti Armor (HEAA) warhead penetrates 580-600mm of standard armor.

[DRG]

Well, that explains the 60 value that's in the standard SMAW. The next question is does the SMAW-NE have the same capability to penetrate the same amount of standard armour ? Is it a full power duel HEAT / incendiary round or is the penetrative power less to accommodate the added incendiary part of the charge that doesn't exist in the standard round ??


Don

[Imp]

Question on tests what armour value should we be going against to give you usefull info?
As a baseline tested normal flamethrower Pen 18 Heat 15 vs 26 steel no HEAT mod
Pretty much what expected as thats a Patton.
Attacked using W key so flame only no assault checking it hit, engineers set to 70 exp morale base line stationary fire.
Sample 40 hits.
20 survived =50%
of those
10 undamaged
8 1 damage
2 3 damage
So 25% just suppressed.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

Well, that explains the 60 value that's in the standard SMAW. The next question is does the SMAW-NE have the same capability to penetrate the same amount of standard armour ? Is it a full power duel HEAT / incendiary round or is the penetrative power less to accommodate the added incendiary part of the charge that doesn't exist in the standard round ??


Don

Actually the NE round has little to no penetration ability.
It's strictly an FAE, used to clear bunkers/buildings.
They usually use an HE or AP round to blow a hole in a wall then fire an NE round thru it.
But there's no reason at all they wouldn't carry standard AP rounds.
Unfortunately there's no way to represent all three types of ammo on one weapon. So what I did was the standard SMAW has HE & AP, the NE has NE & AP.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Actually the NE round has little to no penetration ability.
It's strictly an FAE, used to clear bunkers/buildings.
They usually use an HE or AP round to blow a hole in a wall then fire an NE round thru it.
But there's no reason at all they wouldn't carry standard AP rounds.
Unfortunately there's no way to represent all three types of ammo on one weapon. So what I did was the standard SMAW has HE & AP, the NE has NE & AP.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nd/smaw-ne.htm


True enough it seems

Quote...." Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure."



Don

[Suhiir]

All this leads me to wonder if FAE ammo in general is "properly" rated in game.

Without going into a lot of details (in this post) in general FAE's are not all that effective in open areas, i.e. outdoors. This is one reason no one has bothered to make FAE artillery rounds for instance.
FAEs are VERY effective in enclosed spaces, why they're used as bunker busters.
Since there's no way I'm aware of for WinSPMBT to determine if a given target is a building vice in the open its probable that in-game FAE effects for enclosed targets are being applied to targets in the open. Making FAEs a lot more lethal then they should be vs most targets.

So the question is...do FAEs get under-rated vs the (limited number) of target types they're very effective against? Or over-rated vs the (much larger number) target types they're of more limited effect on?

If desired we can discuss the precise characteristics of FAE...but I'm not sure anyone is THAT interested in Physics 101.

[DRG]

This is exactly what we are dealing with now and I'm testing not only revised OOB data but revised code as well. Trust me, when we are done these won't be wonder weapons any more but they won't be geldings either. We're trying to strike a realistic balance based better info than we have available before.

Don

[Suhiir]

Ahhh...
I wasn't going to even suggest code changes.
I was trying to figure out the best balance between "realism" and "game effects" given the current code.
Bless you Don.

[Imp]

You probably know already but had a quick look on web
RMG multipurpose penetration 120-140mm seems the thought earing towards lower.
RPO A Blast described as comparable to 122mm arty for effect vs structures by Janes among others
RPO M Approximatly 50% more effective

If you want any further tests specify weapon & armour values vs as set up so can change quickly.