Armor should have a minimum threshold for damage
Without using terms from other games <wink> armor blocks should have a threshold before they take any damage from different weapons. Small arms (a pistol or rifle) for example are not going to do more than scratch the paint on a heavily armored tank. You could shoot at it all day and not do any significant damage.
The simplified version of the suggestion is that essentially:
Heavy weapons are needed to damage heavy armor
Light weapons are needed to damage light armor
Personal weapons damage unarmored components
I'd probably want to expand on that basic premise a little and have each weapon have an armor penetration value in 2.5cm units. Each weapon might have an AP or HE variant, which changes that armor penetration value. In the expanded premise, have a conversion value where 'x' number of 2.5cm light armor blocks is equal to 'y' number of 2.5cm heavy armor blocks vs. penetration. if a weapon's armor penetration (based on ammo type) is too low, then it does not damage the block at all (thoght it might apply some cosmetic change per another suggestion).
Just never liked in SE1 where some heavy armor block is slowly whittled down by an interior turret.
I like this feedback
Thing is we technically already have this. However something to keep in mind is that even irl when a small arms weapon like a 5.56 rifle, AK-47, or other personal weapons hit something, the damage isn't always zero. As just one example, a .50 caliber rifle can crack an engine block of a moving vehicle or damage other components, especially if you're using black tips (AP rounds). Even 5.56 can go through certain steel plates. The armor in SE isn't a solid chunk of steel, but layered plates if the construction models are indications. In reality you wouldn't only need to crack or break one of the plates and you've then made it easier to do the same to the others. Eventually assuming you have a powerful enough caliber and put enough rounds into something, the block will fail.
Gameplay wise they could just up and say that x type of weapon deals no damage to block type y, however I don't find that very engaging. By the time an interior turret could get close to breaking a heavy armor block I would hope you've had enough time to knock out the turret. If not that turret deserves to break the block.
Thing is we technically already have this. However something to keep in mind is that even irl when a small arms weapon like a 5.56 rifle, AK-47, or other personal weapons hit something, the damage isn't always zero. As just one example, a .50 caliber rifle can crack an engine block of a moving vehicle or damage other components, especially if you're using black tips (AP rounds). Even 5.56 can go through certain steel plates. The armor in SE isn't a solid chunk of steel, but layered plates if the construction models are indications. In reality you wouldn't only need to crack or break one of the plates and you've then made it easier to do the same to the others. Eventually assuming you have a powerful enough caliber and put enough rounds into something, the block will fail.
Gameplay wise they could just up and say that x type of weapon deals no damage to block type y, however I don't find that very engaging. By the time an interior turret could get close to breaking a heavy armor block I would hope you've had enough time to knock out the turret. If not that turret deserves to break the block.
I agre with most of what you say, but your examples are along the lines of what I'm talking about. You shoot a 5.56 at a heavy tank and you are not damaging it in any meaningful way. The .50 would be a heavier weapon that would damage more armor types, etc.
I guess the distintion is with the term 'armor'. If it's just bulk steel plates, then that's different than a purpose-built armor. The M1114 had what would be considered a thin light armor plate protection and could stand up to 7.62 quite well (in this case, it certainly would be taking small amounts of damage) but that's a thin light armor plate.
Keep in mind that using SE1 as an example, pretty much only the interior turret and man portable small arms (except the rocket launcher) would fall into the category of not being able to damage heavily armored components, with AP ammo being able to up that (and AP ammo could be something that is more expensive resource wise to make).
My sticking point prompting this suggestion is mainly the light arms vs. heavy armor essentially. You're never going to sink a battleship with a pistol but under the SE1 (and probably SE2) system, and given unlimited ammo and time that's exacly what the current model allows.
I agre with most of what you say, but your examples are along the lines of what I'm talking about. You shoot a 5.56 at a heavy tank and you are not damaging it in any meaningful way. The .50 would be a heavier weapon that would damage more armor types, etc.
I guess the distintion is with the term 'armor'. If it's just bulk steel plates, then that's different than a purpose-built armor. The M1114 had what would be considered a thin light armor plate protection and could stand up to 7.62 quite well (in this case, it certainly would be taking small amounts of damage) but that's a thin light armor plate.
Keep in mind that using SE1 as an example, pretty much only the interior turret and man portable small arms (except the rocket launcher) would fall into the category of not being able to damage heavily armored components, with AP ammo being able to up that (and AP ammo could be something that is more expensive resource wise to make).
My sticking point prompting this suggestion is mainly the light arms vs. heavy armor essentially. You're never going to sink a battleship with a pistol but under the SE1 (and probably SE2) system, and given unlimited ammo and time that's exacly what the current model allows.
I think that should be also on block against block, a heavy armor block should damage a light armor block on a bigger collision but not via versa.
I think that should be also on block against block, a heavy armor block should damage a light armor block on a bigger collision but not via versa.
agree completely Balmung
agree completely Balmung
Replies have been locked on this page!