New method of JDAM implementation

[waldo_ii]

Right now, I hate and love JDAMs. I hate having only JDAMs available versus artillery or mortars, but I love it when the enemy only has JDAMs. Given a choice between a JDAM and artillery, any player would choose artillery for a number of reasons. A few of them are legitimate reasons why artillery is superior to a JDAM, one of them is because of a flaw in the method in which JDAMs are implemented in PR. I'm talking about when a JDAM lands right next to you, but you are left unharmed because it hit a hill near you or building.

You know what I'm talking about. If a JDAM lands somewhere just above you and to the side where the precise pixel-point of impact doesn't have direct line-of-sight to you, you survive, as demonstrated below.



Because of this, surviving a JDAM strike is ridiculously, unrealistically easy. My suggestion means to fix that.

Essentially, I suggest that instead of a single, large impact like we have now, we should instead have dozens of smaller, simultaneous strikes. This would be different from artillery in that all of these strikes would hit the ground at the exact same time, destroying everything within a given radius, as demonstrated in the diagrams below. Please excuse the low quality, I underestimated how much compression would rape them.




The multiple strikes would hit at all elevations in the land, eliminating the ability to hide as demonstrated in the very first figure in this post. However, it still leaves you with the ability to hide inside of buildings and other cover.



I have thought of one flaw to this suggestion, and it almost led me to deletion of this post (I decided to keep going because of how beautiful my diagrams were, and I don't want to waste such beauty) The visual effect would have to be done in some other method than how it is now. With multiple simultaneous strikes as I suggest, there would be multiple simultaneous explosion effects going on instead of the intended perceived single large explosion effect. I do not know enough about BF2 to say for sure that it is impossible to create only one explosion effect, but I also do not know that it can be done. I rely on the experience of the developers to say so. The best ideas I can come up with is to either
A. Completely remove the explosion effects for each impact and spawn/create one large explosion effect at the requested point.
B. Fire two different artillery pieces at the same time, one with the simultaneous effect described above, the other with no explosive effect and just the big particle smoke effect
C. Give each small impact a large smoke cloud, and the combined effects of these smoke clouds would emulate what we have now. Unfortunately, we would lose the possibility of a mushroom-cloud effect with this method.

[billdan]

YES

i actually had this idea in mind for a couple months now,

only problem i forsee that you did not mention is if there is a limit on the number of artillery pieces a mapper can place or if it is possible to have all pieces fire at the same time.

but if it is all possible then this JDAM's will finally be feared and useful

[HangMan_]

This sounds like quite a good system. The JDAM at the moment is too easy to evade i agree. +1 for this suggestion.

[RHYS4190]

Or just create a death field around the bombs kill zone,., like the death field in the out of bounds areas.

[TempesT]

The JDAM is not the menacing weapon it should be. This is a good idea.

[Bringerof_D]

Or just create a death field around the bombs kill zone,., like the death field in the out of bounds areas.

but the cone of death would also be unrealistic because if you were in a ditch you would survive such a blast if you were lucky

[Sidewinder Zulu]

The JDAM should be a tactical nuke...
But......that's another story.

Anyway, sounds like a good suggestion, sort of like a clusterbomb instead of a single warhead.
But I say keep the sound effect.
I love how it can be heard across the whole map.

[Priby]

I like the basic idea behind this, but what about the following scenario?

[Ninja2dan]

I'm just curious, but how many of you really know what the JDAM really is?

JDAM isn't actually a single specific munition, but a munition attachment. Basically, the JDAM system is a guidance add-on for dumb bombs. So if the JDAM used in PR is, for example, the GBU-31 then you're just looking at a standard Mk 84 bomb with a precision guidance system.

In the suggestion of this topic, the realistic ability to use hard cover as protection would no longer apply. When faced with a real munition, you can take cover behind hard solid objects and hopefully survive the blast. While the concussion and over-pressure might still cause injury or damage, it would be much less than being in the open blast radius. This means that overhead cover is not as important as lateral (side) cover.

With this suggestion, taking cover behind a wall or in a ditch would no longer provide survivability like it would in real life. In order to maintain proper gameplay balance I think that the current method of damage is the best option.


In case anyone is wondering what the effects of a GBU-31 (Mk 84) JDAM is like, I do have some live footage that I'll make available below. The first link is the recorded strike, the second link is the BDA (Battle Damage Assessment, or Bomb Damage Assessment).

Misc Military :: 11may04jdam_wsep.flv video by Ninja_STO - Photobucket

Misc Military :: 11may04jdam_bda.flv video by Ninja_STO - Photobucket

[DannyIMK]

JDAM then should enter the ground and explode underground(some feet under the target request) like here: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/attach ... 1254121407

the Blue + means the bomb, the blue dot means the target request, the green is the ground and hill, the red is the enemy and the yellow lines is the explosion

[Ninja2dan]

Roughly how far away from the blast would someone have to be for lateral cover to actually be effective?

Again, it will really depend on a lot of variables. Which type of munition class was the JDAM? What type of material did it detonate on? Exactly what type of barrier was the person or vehicle using as lateral cover? How close was the lateral cover from the blast, and was it in direct un-obstructed contact with the blast wave? What type of possible debris was present?

The funny thing with explosions, either fragmentation or concussion, is that you can get lucky. I was unfortunate enough to have a 40mm HE grenade detonate about 5m from me, and while I took minimal shrapnel injuries, all it mostly did was throw me about 5-6m and knock me out for a few seconds. I have seen people and vehicles survive blasts from nearby heavy explosions that were only a few meters away, and on the other hand I've seen similar vehicles totally destroyed or disabled by weaker blasts further away. There are just too many variables possible to say that anyone or anything within a set radius will be killed or disabled.


Because the BF2 engine is not capable of such complexity in detecting every possible variable, it's going to be extremely difficult to really simulate a realistic damage when within JDAM blast radius. I think that in order to keep gameplay balanced and provide at least some chance of survivability, we have to keep the system pretty much as it is now. Yes, there are times where survival will be unrealistic, but it's a necessary evil when you compare it with the alternatives.

JDAM then should enter the ground and explode underground(some feet under the target request) like here: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/attach ... 1254121407

the Blue + means the bomb, the blue dot means the target request, the green is the ground and hill, the red is the enemy and the yellow lines is the explosion

What you are referring to is with the use of the BLU-109 type of munition, which is a penetrating bomb. Those bombs are designed to defeat bunkers and other dug-in positions, hence their delayed-detonating penetration warheads. The Mk 84 or similar munitions will be contact-detonating munitions designed to explode on impact with the target such as vehicles and structures.

In your "diagram", the munition would most likely just cause a blast wave of dirt and debris to shower the targets, but cause minimal actual damage. In the event that a similar munition was to strike a building for example, the explosion would occur from within the structure and the surrounding enemy units would be covered in concrete, broken glass, and other fragments but the building itself would absorb a lot of the force.


Either way, in reality any type of munition currently used with a JDAM guidance is going to have minimal effect against troops or vehicles in such situations. Because the blast force isn't even with and un-obstructed into the target, they aren't going to take as much damage as if they were on a flat plane with the impact point. This is why it's very important for the spotter or pilot to select a good impact point in relation to the target, and select the proper munition that will be capable of dealing the most amount of damage based on the target environment.

Unfortunately, I have seen a lot of people using the JDAM in PR inside of cities and areas where there are many high obstacles that might cause premature detonation of the munitions. In situations like this, it's probably a much smarter technique to engage the targets with more precise weapons such as IFV/MBT main weapons or crew-served weapons. Air strikes and artillery in closed terrain (such as MOUT) are not wise uses of those assets.


Instead of trying to change weapon systems in PR to fit player tactics, players need to change their tactics to fit the realistic and intended function of those weapon systems.

[billdan]

hmm
if we must keep the JDAM strike the way it is due to realism issues, then why not ditch the CO JDAM strike completely for the current 155 Arty strike? It's much more effective in game and the maps where JDAM's are most prominent (Kashan & Qinling) already have mini JDAM guided 500 lbers from the jets.

[Ninja2dan]

hmm
if we must keep the JDAM strike the way it is due to realism issues, then why not ditch the CO JDAM strike completely for the current 155 Arty strike? It's much more effective in game and the maps where JDAM's are most prominent (Kashan & Qinling) already have mini JDAM guided 500 lbers from the jets.

I'll let the other guys answer your specific question, but in relation to why use a JDAM over the 155mm it's simply a question over desired use. The JDAM is a single high-precision weapon, where the 155mm is going to be a barrage of area-effect munitions (unless Copperhead is used). Both have their pros and cons.

And I'm not much of a pilot in PR, but I'm guessing that any guided 500lb munitions would be the GBU-12 LGB (or similar, depending on faction), one of the Paveway series. These are slightly different than the JDAM, but in general will work in the same manner. Again, the question would be how does the team intend to use the munition (where and against what target)? The larger GBU-31 and the smaller GBU-12 will both have their advantages on the battlefield.


I'm not going to get involved in a discussion about which types of munitions should or shouldn't be here, that's not my area. All I'm saying is that the way the JDAM in PR works now, it's going to be a lot more realistic and balanced than to have a bunch of smaller submunitions going off in a radial pattern. This is a GBU, not a CBU.

[Tim270]

Well I understand that its not a CBU and should have a single inclusive explosion, however I think the Op's system could work, but instead of showing loads of small cluster like explosions with the visual, you keep the effect as it is, but put in multiple 'invisible' explosions, so it looks like one huge single explosions, but say if it hits the roof of a small building next to you, you are not going to survive. All it is now is a big smoke cloud really...

[Ninja2dan]

Well I understand that its not a CBU and should have a single inclusive explosion, however I think the Op's system could work, but instead of showing loads of small cluster like explosions with the visual, you keep the effect as it is, but put in multiple 'invisible' explosions, so it looks like one huge single explosions, but say if it hits the roof of a small building next to you, you are not going to survive. All it is now is a big smoke cloud really...

So if the person was hiding behind a thick concrete wall? Or inside a ditch? In reality, that person would likely survive under the right conditions. But in the OP's suggestion, the small "bomblets" would kill him regardless of lateral cover.

I just don't see how you can use such a method without going against the principles of cover. I think the proper solution is not changing the weapon system to make it unrealistic, but instead to make players use a realistic method of deployment.


If you were in a trench, ditch, foxhole, etc and a 2000lb JDAM impacted say 150m from you, you'd have a fairly high chance of survival. The walls of your foxhole might cave in, and you might be showered in dirt. But apart from that and needing a new change of shorts, you should be ok. Compare that to a troop in the open maybe 300m from the impact point, and the unobstructed blast wave is likely to rip his body up pretty badly. Chances of survival then are slim if any. See my point? I think I've said my peace here.

[Expendable Grunt]

I say we ditch the JDAM completely because it doesn't work with the engine. Or, at the very least, only leave it for naval assault maps, as there isn't anywhere to put arty units.

Or, perhaps, for ship to shore, call an offmap missile attack -- that's how we do that, right?

M.

[l|Bubba|l]

If you were in a trench, ditch, foxhole, etc and a 2000lb JDAM impacted say 150m from you, you'd have a fairly high chance of survival. The walls of your foxhole might cave in, and you might be showered in dirt. But apart from that and needing a new change of shorts, you should be ok. Compare that to a troop in the open maybe 300m from the impact point, and the unobstructed blast wave is likely to rip his body up pretty badly. Chances of survival then are slim if any. See my point? I think I've said my peace here.

Right now you would even survive 1m from the impact point due a paper thin wall.

I support the idea of multiply dummy explosions but not in it extend.
I would recommend only 4 or 5 dummy explosions near the center of the impact point.



You would still able to survive outside the inner core due cover but the explosion power has more chances to spread out and not dissolves completely at a near obstacle.

[PlasmaSoldier]

This is quite a good idea!