RPG-7V vs RPG-7VR

Hi all, I've played ArmA, and my earliest experience with BIS is from OFP 1.35?

Suffice it to say, I'm intimately familiar with the RPG-7 and its characteristics since first use.

When I came upon Armaholic's listing of wpn damage, I was a bit...well...shocked.

The default RPG-7V/VL/VM penetrates about 260mm of armor, and is a HEAT round. The 7-VR is a tandem warhead designed to penetrate ERA equipped armor, and penetrates about 650mm of armor, but is an AT round.

I've discussed this on the Armaholic forum;

http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&p=17815#17815

I did not have a BIS account, but decided to get some feedback from BIS developers about this issue.

I guess to sum up, this is a suggestion to bring the RPG-7 up to specs of RL, though I understand this is just a mil sim game. It's up to BIS as food for thought.

Suggestion:

update the RPG-7V/VL/VM to 260 dmg from the current 500. keep the range. reloadable

New image for RPG-7VR, change the ammo to a 3 box ammo. change the damage to 650 from 600. Increase the drop-off to 1/3 of current. reloadable. (200m range vs 500m range of the 7-V round)

Add a new launcher with a PSO sight.

For game balance;

Add M136-HEDP vs veh. 720 dmg AT. 1 shot wpn. (currently 470)

Add M136-LMAW vs inf. 500 dmg HE. 1 shot wpn.

There are stories coming out of Iraq of multiple rpg's fired at M1A2's that survive the barrage. This would make it a possibility thou I understand would be unbalancing for the game.

reference;

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl02-e.htm

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Vehicles

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Weapons

Hi all, I've played ArmA, and my earliest experience with BIS is from OFP 1.35?

Suffice it to say, I'm intimately familiar with the RPG-7 and its characteristics since first use.

When I came upon Armaholic's listing of wpn damage, I was a bit...well...shocked.

The default RPG-7V/VL/VM penetrates about 260mm of armor, and is a HEAT round. The 7-VR is a tandem warhead designed to penetrate ERA equipped armor, and penetrates about 650mm of armor, but is an AT round.

I've discussed this on the Armaholic forum;

http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&p=17815#17815

I did not have a BIS account, but decided to get some feedback from BIS developers about this issue.

I guess to sum up, this is a suggestion to bring the RPG-7 up to specs of RL, though I understand this is just a mil sim game. It's up to BIS as food for thought.

Suggestion:

update the RPG-7V/VL/VM to 260 dmg from the current 500. keep the range. reloadable

New image for RPG-7VR, change the ammo to a 3 box ammo. change the damage to 650 from 600. Increase the drop-off to 1/3 of current. reloadable. (200m range vs 500m range of the 7-V round)

Add a new launcher with a PSO sight.

For game balance;

Add M136-HEDP vs veh. 720 dmg AT. 1 shot wpn. (currently 470)

Add M136-LMAW vs inf. 500 dmg HE. 1 shot wpn.

There are stories coming out of Iraq of multiple rpg's fired at M1A2's that survive the barrage. This would make it a possibility thou I understand would be unbalancing for the game.

reference;

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl02-e.htm

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Vehicles

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Weapons

The discussion of era penetration statistics is sort of moot given arma's damage model isn't going to give you a realistic simulation of those values. rpgs shouldnt' really be able to do much harm vs. an abrams tank unless it hit a specific set of points... in real life it's more complicated. I think that a better way to improve the damage simulation with what we've got is to discuss relative armour penetration, blast or frag effects, and vehicle armour values. However, BIS built the game with some gameplay aspects in mind. I think that the at simulation empowers troops in the face of heavily armoured vehicles, giving them options to do things other than run away screaming.

heh. Was there a reason to quote my entire 1st post? I must be in the big league forums now because there's an echo...

Note I didn't recommend adding in deflection angles, vehicle speed, vehicle elevation, vehicle location, joints, optics, vents...yadde yadde

Too much detail would prob cause everyone on the server to have a 5 sec lag spike while the game engine calculated what happened with the hit. heh.

The suggestions are minimal fixes to approximate what happens in game now. I fully expect this as a Friday food for thought, and none of it implemented.

But

If any of it is considered, and used. We all benefit.

heh. Was there a reason to quote my entire 1st post? I must be in the big league forums now because there's an echo...

Note I didn't recommend adding in deflection angles, vehicle speed, vehicle elevation, vehicle location, joints, optics, vents...yadde yadde

Too much detail would prob cause everyone on the server to have a 5 sec lag spike while the game engine calculated what happened with the hit. heh.

The suggestions are minimal fixes to approximate what happens in game now. I fully expect this as a Friday food for thought, and none of it implemented.

But

If any of it is considered, and used. We all benefit.

IT's quite an old conversation. There's quite a legacy of ideas of trying to improve this that go all the way back to 2001. One of the most ambitious projects was the CAVS.

http://203.96.151.15/ofpnz/ofsi_cavs.htm

You should use the search engine before posting new topics. There is quite a lot of ground covered on this subject already.

Sorry Plaintiff. Sounds like a few conversations I've missed. For that I apologize.

But let me be equally clear. I've played a lot of them. When did you start. not as a dig. but just curious if your history with OFP goes back as far as me and a few others.

I have about 3 GB of addons and mods backed up from OFP.

This is where it is now. ArmA

The link pointed to OFP info. and yes. the info is still relevant, but the weapons and vehicles table are posted as canon for ArmA right now.

Simplest solution always seems to work best, no?

I still remember the old dilemna of how to launch fighters from rough terrain. I remember laughing when Total Yugo War just spawned them at 500 altitude and in flight. heh. Simple. why didn't we think of it?

It's not fair of me to ask your history of OFP/ArmA.

Here's mine off the top of my head;

Hours and hours of downloads, hundreds of megs downloading mods and mission loads. OFP watch and ASE monitors of missions and servers.

1.35. suffering through the SP campaign. being deathly afraid of BMP's and their HE cannons hiding in bushes.

1.75 Resistance campaign. Using AK's became second nature. Becoming familiar with russin LAWs and ambush tactics.

MFCTI. months of playing and running on Everon and finding faster ways of getting to the enemy base. Ninja jeeps and fast low level FFAR bomb runs on the enemy base.

BAS first real modern armory of US equipment. First time we see RPG-7's.

LOL's v4 of island airfield then the town on Nogova (name eludes me)

Linoleum Still the best coop mission written. cudos Bravo 6

Airfield takeover. Using BAS/USMC take over ZSU 23/armor/sks defended airfield using a Chinook

USMC Marine Assault addon pack. I think this is the first time bleeding and medics using bandages as navy corpsman.

KaRRiLLioN's cti. an entirely different cti animal.

1.95 CRCTI unpredictable AI that came at your base with waves and waves of T-80's and shilkas. Some actually faux intelligence in how the ai assembled and hunted you down.

DVD CTI More modern mix of tanks, aircraft, equipment.

Total Yugo War. Camo nets, foxholes, static AT mounts, AA missile tanks, AI fighter duels.

Then all got wiped away when ArmA came into the mix, and took away more addons than we'd like to lose in the name of a better interface.

I feel we're just about to catch up now with what we had in OFP. All thanks to the modding community and BIS, who took the risk to continue the legacy, as you say.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was. I am confused as to what relevence your mod history has with addon requests. At any rate, ArmA has an interesting and thriving mod community. You may even find some rpgs in there.

I'm sure you and I have seen our fair share of new players making silly requests. Old players are not exempt from this behavior : P

Legacy is what you brought up, and I was trying to show you I'm not ignorant of the pains that OFP players have gone thru to get to where we are now at ArmA 1.11.

The addon request is to point out and make sure BIS understands what is on the table right now. A second set of eye, if you will.

And yes. I've seen Project '85 with the launcher requested, I'm not sure if they plan to implement the characteristics mentioned in my 1st post.

http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=2524

At least that's the latest flavor in the oven.

Time will tell.

I'm sure you and I have seen our fair share of new players making silly requests. Old players are not exempt from this behavior : P

Legacy is what you brought up, and I was trying to show you I'm not ignorant of the pains that OFP players have gone thru to get to where we are now at ArmA 1.11.

The addon request is to point out and make sure BIS understands what is on the table right now. A second set of eye, if you will.

And yes. I've seen Project '85 with the launcher requested, I'm not sure if they plan to implement the characteristics mentioned in my 1st post.

http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=2524

At least that's the latest flavor in the oven.

Time will tell.

Oh, I didn't think you were ignorant or anything. I just saw that you had only 5 posts and figured you hadn't been around the forums to participate in all those conversations.

if im not wrong the PG7VR in arma works like a high explosive anti infantry rocket. it has a big explosion and a big blast radius and doesnt do much damage against armored vehicles.

if im not wrong the PG7VR in arma works like a high explosive anti infantry rocket. it has a big explosion and a big blast radius and doesnt do much damage against armored vehicles.

arma doesn't have a pg-7vr. It has a pg-7v that acts like an antitank rocket, no?

if im not wrong the PG7VR in arma works like a high explosive anti infantry rocket. it has a big explosion and a big blast radius and doesnt do much damage against armored vehicles.

arma doesn't have a pg-7vr.  It has a pg-7v that acts like an antitank rocket, no?

yeah arma does have a pg7vr look in SLA ammo crates. but about my previous statement that was just my imagination. i tried shooting it near me but it didnt do the kind of damage i expected. odd

So there is! I didn't notice that before... and boy are they low poly!

There doesn't really seem to be any difference between the two in terms of damage.. odd.

Only now do I realise what frank-o was talking about! His point isn't as obvious as it is on his post at armaholic. I didn't read it before now.

There indeed is a difference.

From http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Weapons :

PG7V Dmg: 500

PG7VR Dmg: 600

There indeed is a difference.

From http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Weapons :

PG7V Dmg: 500

PG7VR Dmg: 600

And then you compare your values there with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7#Ammunition

No wonder the OP wants to see some differences

To be fair, the pg-7vl penetrates 500mm of rha, and the pg-7vr which looks much different penetrates 6-700, according to that site. The vr model in arma looks like it's a place holder, so if they just replace that model and change the name of the pg-7v to vl, they're good to go.

well. Far from me to try and correct BIS's interpretation of the RPG-7V implementation, but I think they were trying to make things equal on both sides. Unfortunately, it just isn't so.

RPG-7V is a HEAT round. Shaped charge tech from the Panzerfaust of WWII, it basically is a directed HE round.

RPG-7VR is a tandem warhead. 1st warhead blows away any protective exterior shield/ERA plates, then the 2nd warhead does the real shaped charge work against the main armor.

My suggestion is to try and keep some semblance of play balance, but accomodate the RL situation;

1. Reduce the 7V damage to 260 from 500, but make it an HE round instead of AT. Keep it reloadable (HE value 26, 5 m radius)

2. Increase the 7VR damage from 600 to 650, reduce the max range by tripling the drop-off due to distance by a factor of 3. Change the inventory icon to a 3 box ammo. keep it reloadable

3. Turn the M136 AT to two types;

HEDP 500 dmg. HE. 1 shot (HE value 50, 5m radius)

LMAW 720 dmg. AT. 1 shot (T72 has 750 dmg, M1A2 has 900)

Optional change is to add a sighted launcher to both; PSO for the RPG-7, and Aimpoint-like for the M136.

Would this make the game unbalancing? What are your thoughts?

***

I've made a request for the RPG-29V "Vampir" on the addons forum. Over the weekend a server modded EVO for the SLA to have Javelins. This of course, is unrealistic. The best NATO armor forces have come across on the battlefield is the Vampir. I hope the modding community will respond.

i agree with the above post

I've upgraded/changed Domination to suit our own clan use. Now we are forced to play "roles", no more "full crates of everything for everyone" - M136 can now only be found as ammunition, and sparingly so. Then again, we don't play it the same way it is done online.

Enemy AT units has been given one 7V and one 7VR, and the last one randomly between these. Now, people doesn't tend to read the info box on ammunition (raiding AI due to less M136 availability), so they tend to not realize the muzzle velocity change (significant) between the two rounds causing more than a few misses - great fun

I'm aware that the M136 is a single shot weapon, but I disagree it should be single shot in ArmA, simply because the system doesn't allow an AT soldier to carry more than one tube as can be done in real life. Maybe instead the rounds should take up 3 slots instead of two for M136 rounds (leave RPG-7 with two as it is now).

The way it should work in my opinion:

* M136 should have other ammo available.

*AI should be able to aim both if different muzzle velocities.

If they can't, AI should prioritize the use of the AT round, which they should be able to hit with. If AI fires at 'man', they should use one causing splash damage even if they don't hit too well with it. Never checked if AI handles 7VR very well.

* Keep multiloading capabilities on M136 if multiple tubes can't be carried.

* Maybe increase the ammo size for M136 to three slots, making it less attractive for other heavy users to carry this ammunition.

* Bunker or tandem warheads have little purpose in current ArmA. Instead use the HE round with more splash damage.

* I disagree in increasing the AT round effect, simply because it would mean more frequent catastrophic kills that just disabling also on weaker vehicles.

Sounds like you have your own flavor of gameplay set up already for your clan. I congratulate you on setting your clan environment. not sarcastic. I wish BIS would enforce something like it on example BIS servers.

Just to make sure we're on the same page.

1. RPG-7 and M136 do not have HE effects right now. I'm suggesting it here.

2. I did suggest 2 ammo types for the M136; HEDP and LMAW. HE and AT respectively

3. Don't mix the ai RPG ammo, esp if you've changed the ammo velocity.

a. Their aim will be off.

b. They will not favor one type over the other without scripted AI.

Where we differ;

Yours;

Don't increase M136 damage. Keep it reloadable. change it to 3 box ammo.

Mine;

Reduce 7V damage. Make both 7V and HEDP have 5m HE effects

Increase 7VR damage. shorten it's range. reloadable at 3 box inv.

Add M136-LMAW. increase it's AT damage.

Non-reloadable for both M136 ammo types.

Based on RL stats. RPG-7V just doesn't penetrate that much armor, and M136's are just that much more powerful as a disposable LAW.

AT damage is already catastrophic on anything below a tank. At 470 and 500 for the lowest armor veh other than a tank, which is a bmp/shilka at 250. At my proposed 260 value for the RPG-7V, a Stryker with rail waist armor should be around 320.

Hi,

Quote[/b] ]b. They will not favor one type over the other without scripted AI.

To some extent the preference of the AI to use a weapon on a target can be influenced by the cost of the round in the config. A higher cost ammunition type will tend to be used on targets with higher values (they are less likely to engage a low value target with it), so if the cost of an AT round is made higher than the cost of an HE round you should see AI reserving AT rounds for armour. There is no perfect symmetry with low cost ammunition though, the AI would not target infantry more than vehicles simply based on cost, for that the direct hit and indirect hit values should also be fine tuned. A considerable amount of trial and error would be required to find good values for the cost of ammunition types. It took quite some time to fine tune the ammo costs for the LLW YPR to get the AI to display desired behaviour when engaging different targets (preference for three round bursts against vehicles over single shots), but the result was worth the effort.

Regards,

Sander

Tx for that info, Sanders!

I stand corrected...if modded correctly. : p