Cover should increase armor

The gentleman has already stated this was a hypothetical for a future CoH game, so worrying about how it would be implemented into CoH2 is unnecessary.

Coh3 uses the same mechanism as COh2

However, if the game already has code to detect which models are inside of cover and which are out, I don't imagine it being too hard to implement.

That is irrelevant since in the current target table system there is check for the weapon firing, if the squad had any defensive bonuses there would have to be an additional check to see if those apply to specific weapon firing.

As I have point out in previous post UKF infatry used to get Received accuracy bonus when in cover that was always working when the squad was in cover even if the squad did not actually benefited from normal cover bonuses.

Either way I don't think coh2 even has a way to differentiate covers besides directional or not. Cover from a dead cow is coded the same as cover from a shrubbery, etc.

There are around 4 types of cover in use.

There are additional garrison-building and terrain types that can effect weapon performance and provide bonuses.

For instance flamers do less damage in water terrain.

And what I am trying to pointed out is that the current system applies to weapon not squad themselves and that is why direction cover and point mechanism works.

By giving an armor bonus to squad itself instead of the weapon one has to add a new calculation done by the squad to see if the weapon firing on the squad should get cover penalty or not. (not even sure if that is possible)

If one want to the effect you describe all one has to do is to adjust the cover tables of "high penetration small arm" so that they have lower accuracy/damage penalties so the DPS equals that of armor.

I've mentioned multiple times now that this is a design discussion that is untied from engine restraints. I've mentioned how the current system of RA and damage reduction is not authentic and what issues it creates, to then further introduce how my suggestion could at least partially solve even those. From the beginning I clearly stated my suggestion is not supposed to be introduced into CoH2 and that there would be issues in doing so.

Please stop with assuming to apply all changes to the CoH2 system. We don't exactly know how CoH3 functions, I assume similarly, but nevertheless we get a "fresh" start with people working on the game and being able to make larger changes even after release, as seen with CoH2. But even assuming all that, this discussion can be completely untied from both CoH2 and CoH3.


EDIT: In the end, even in CoH2 and since infantry armor is standardized, you could just apply a penetration debuff on the weapon if it shoots at squads in cover. Not sure if the Relic devs allow for that in the mod tools, but that would technically be a very easy thing to implement using even the old CoH2 system.

That is irrelevant since in the current target table system there is check for the weapon firing, if the squad had any defensive bonuses there would have to be an additional check to see if those apply to specific weapon firing.

No that's not really how it works? The effects against cover are bound to the weapon, aren't they? Unless the way that the cover data is presented with the weapon in serelia is just an abstraction and the code works a different way.

As I understand it:
1.) The game checks if a model is in cover
2.) The model recieves fire from a weapon
3.) The weapon itself has certain effects against the model depending on what kind of cover its in

If that's the case, then I'm sure it would be possible to adjust the likelihood of hitting a model in cover for that specific weapon by an equation involving the RA of the cover and the penetration.

For example, you could say a stone fence has 1.1 armor.
So you could put an entry for the Kar98's RA modifier against something like: "green_cover_stone" as something like ".5*(penetration/1.1)"

EDIT: that's just a hypothetical equation, I don't know if it would be better for balance to have it be additive or multiplicative.

I've mentioned multiple times now that this is a design discussion that is untied from engine restraints. I've mentioned how the current system of RA and damage reduction is not authentic and what issues it creates, to then further introduce how my suggestion could at least partially solve even those. From the beginning I clearly stated my suggestion is not supposed to be introduced into CoH2 and that there would be issues in doing so.

Please stop with assuming to apply all changes to the CoH2 system. We don't exactly know how CoH3 functions, I assume similarly, but nevertheless we get a "fresh" start with people working on the game and being able to make larger changes even after release, as seen with CoH2. But even assuming all that, this discussion can be completely untied from both CoH2 and CoH3.

What I fail to understand is what in your opinion would be the benefit of protection being offered by armor instead of received accuracy.

As you have posted there is little difference if a bullet miss or fail to penetrate.

I could see why one want to introduce an "armor" system for infatry so that certain units can be more durable to certain types of weapons (although if such a system did exist it should be as simply and easy to understand as possible and not the COH1 mess).

I can even understand if some does not like the damage reduction green cover offers for small arms fire. I simply do not see the "armor" brings to cover that received accuracy can not bring.

No that's not really how it works? The effects against cover are bound to the weapon, aren't they? Unless the way that the cover data is presented with the weapon in serelia is just an abstraction and the code works a different way.

As I understand it:
1.) The game checks if a model is in cover
2.) The model recieves fire from a weapon
3.) The weapon itself has certain effects against the model depending on what kind of cover its in

If that's the case, then I'm sure it would be possible to adjust the likelihood of hitting a model in cover for that specific weapon by an equation involving the RA of the cover and the penetration.

For example, you could say a stone fence has 1.1 armor.
So you could put an entry for the Kar98's RA modifier against something like: "green_cover_stone" as something like ".5*(penetration/1.1)"

EDIT: that's just a hypothetical equation, I don't know if it would be better for balance to have it be additive or multiplicative.

I am not sure why you are confused.

If unit receives bonus from cover is squad thing. IS section will get bonuses even if there flanked or fighing in point blank range.

This completely different from a weapon firing to certain target and doing "accuracy" and "damage" checks and applying the appropriate modifiers.

A fence's armor would effect the damage that fence would receive and not the unit behind it.

What I fail to understand is what in your opinion would be the benefit of protection being offered by armor instead of received accuracy.

As you have posted there is little difference if a bullet miss or fail to penetrate.

Pick any
Show Spoiler

I could see why one want to introduce an "armor" system for infatry so that certain units can be more durable to certain types of weapons (although if such a system did exist it should be as simply and easy to understand as possible and not the COH1 mess).

I can even understand if some does not like the damage reduction green cover offers for small arms fire. I simply do not see the "armor" brings to cover that received accuracy can not bring.

I don't want to introduce a general armor system to infantry, that was exactly the point.
I doubt you have properly read any of my posts or you didn't fully understand them. I mentioned all of the above in basically every post I made in this thread, including lengthy posts responding to Gachigasm how I see an issue in introducing a general armor system as he suggested.

I am not sure why you are confused.

If unit receives bonus from cover is squad thing. IS section will get bonuses even if there flanked or fighing in point blank range.

This completely different from a weapon firing to certain target and doing "accuracy" and "damage" checks and applying the appropriate modifiers.

A fence's armor would effect the damage that fence would receive and not the unit behind it.

I think YOU are confused, my friend.

Is it or is it not true that some models of a squad can be in cover and some not?

Is it or is it not true that the damage dealt to said model is based on data which is coded to the WEAPON, and not the cover itself?

What I am proposing is not to give a squad a bonus based on the cover that it's in. I am proposing an approximation of that, represented by an equation which takes into account the penetration of a weapon and the "armor" of a piece of cover.

For example, and please correct me if I'm wrong, within the flamethrower's code is contained how much damage or accuracy it will do against a specific type of cover. This is what I understood from the modding tools.

My idea is simply this:

Green cover can be separated into a few different kinds, depending on the material.

For example,
whereas there is one variable for green cover as it is now, perhaps there could be "green_cover_stone" and "green_cover_steel" etc.

And the RA modifiers against these cover types could (possibly) be represented by an equation which takes into account the specific weapon's penetration.

For example:
green_cover_stone RA modifier = ".5*(pen\1.1)
green_cover_steel RA modifier = ".5*(pen\1.3)

Where "pen" is a variable that calls upon the current weapon's penetration value at that range.

It isn't "armor" per se, but I think it might approximate it.

I think YOU are confused, my friend.

Nope that is still you.

Is it or is it not true that some models of a squad can be in cover and some not?

That is again irrelevant. There is cover status and cover bonuses. Cover status applies to whole of IS squad even only a single entity is cover.

Is it or is it not true that the damage dealt to said model is based on data which is coded to the WEAPON, and not the cover itself?

I have pointed out that plenty of times.

What I am proposing is not to give a squad a bonus based on the cover that it's in. I am proposing an approximation of that, represented by an equation which takes into account the penetration of a weapon and the "armor" of a piece of cover.

For example, and please correct me if I'm wrong, within the flamethrower's code is contained how much damage or accuracy it will do against a specific type of cover. This is what I understood from the modding tools.

Nope. A weapon will fire at entity and apply modifiers according to number of variables. One of the being cover. The "armor" value of the cover itself has no bearing.

My idea is simply this:

Green cover can be separated into a few different kinds, depending on the material.

For example,
whereas there is one variable for green cover as it is now, perhaps there could be "green_cover_stone" and "green_cover_steel" etc.

And the RA modifiers against these cover types could (possibly) be represented by an equation which takes into account the specific weapon's penetration.

For example:
green_cover_stone RA modifier = ".5*(pen\1.1)
green_cover_steel RA modifier = ".5*(pen\1.3)

Where "pen" is a variable that calls upon the current weapon's penetration value at that range.

It isn't "armor" per se, but I think it might approximate it.

I have not checked if target tables include "armor" in the first place. Even if they did the exact same effect can be achieved without armor only with received accuracy.

In any case if you need further help understanding how these things work I suggest you sent a PM since this is not what this thread is about.

Vipper. I can't help you. Clearly google translate or whatever you're using is mangling what I'm saying beyond recognition or you just can't comprehend what I'm saying to you.

It's one thing to explain to me why what I said can't be implemented, it's another thing entirely to continue to misunderstand but insist that I'm the mistaken one.

Vipper, maybe another English speaker here can help you understand what I'm trying to say. Otherwise I'm not going to reiterate it for the third time, because you're likely not going to try any harder to understand than you did the first two times.

EDIT: You know what. I'm stubborn. Why not try again anyways.

Vipper, as you have agreed multiple times, weapons have values hardcoded as to what damage and accuracy they have against certain cover types.

I am saying that for the accuracy value, perhaps it could be replaced with an equation. If you are interested in what my idea for that equation would be, please reread my statement above.

If that is not possible to implement, because CoH2 cannot take an equation as a value to a variable, that is one thing.

but I am NOT talking about giving a PROP ARMOR. I am talking about making multiple cover types, and putting this "armor" into an equation related to them.

Vipper. I can't help you. Clearly google translate or whatever you're using is mangling what I'm saying beyond recognition or you just can't comprehend what I'm saying to you.

It's one thing to explain to me why what I said can't be implemented, it's another thing entirely to continue to misunderstand but insist that I'm the mistaken one.

Vipper, maybe another English speaker here can help you understand what I'm trying to say. Otherwise I'm not going to reiterate it for the third time, because you're likely not going to try any harder to understand than you did the first two times.

EDIT: You know what. I'm stubborn. Why not try again anyways.

Vipper, as you have agreed multiple times, weapons have values hardcoded as to what damage and accuracy they have against certain cover types.

I am saying that for the accuracy value, perhaps it could be replaced with an equation. If you are interested in what my idea for that equation would be, please reread my statement above.

If that is not possible to implement, because CoH2 cannot take an equation as a value to a variable, that is one thing.

but I am NOT talking about giving a PROP ARMOR. I am talking about making multiple cover types, and putting this "armor" into an equation related to them.

If you want me to explain something to you about COH mechanics pls use PM.

If you have a suggestion to make share it with community and not me specifically.

There is simply not reason to address me in thread Hannibal has make for his own suggestion about cover mechanics.

Bye bye now.

Bye bye now.

If you would, please. You're starting to get on my nerves. Thank you.

Basically, some of the durability of the RA and damage reduction modifiers should be moved to an armor bonus, the extend is debatable and the point of this thread.

I think that with my idea, this could be implemented in the current engine.
(I know you said this is a hypothetical but if Vipper is correct about both being built on the same system then we'd have to do a little thinking about how it could be achieved in CoH2 anyways)

Realistically, the player won't be able to tell the difference between whether a bullet missed their soldier entirely or just failed to penetrate, so I think just modifying the RA of certain cover types based on the weapon would work just as well, and it still holds to the spirit of your "armor" idea.

What do you think?

I think that with my idea, this could be implemented in the current engine.
(I know you said this is a hypothetical but if Vipper is correct about both being built on the same system then we'd have to do a little thinking about how it could be achieved in CoH2 anyways)

Realistically, the player won't be able to tell the difference between whether a bullet missed their soldier entirely or just failed to penetrate, so I think just modifying the RA of certain cover types based on the weapon would work just as well, and it still holds to the spirit of your "armor" idea.

What do you think?

The real question is: Would you think it to be beneficial for both game play and making CoH authentic?

Anyway, I just checked: There is already a solution fully implemented in the attribute editor. Relic has probably already thought about something similar. You can manipulate a weapons penetration value depending on the cover the same way you can modify accuracy and damage. That's the same thing as increasing the targets armor, just coming from the other end.
An accuracy modifier depending on the penetration could work, however this would technically not account for penetration changing based on distance. I assume no one would notice, but it is not quite correct as well.

The real question is: Would you think it to be beneficial for both game play and making CoH authentic?

Anyway, I just checked: There is already a solution fully implemented in the attribute editor. Relic has probably already thought about something similar. You can manipulate a weapons penetration value depending on the cover the same way you can modify accuracy and damage. That's the same thing as increasing the targets armor, just coming from the other end.
An accuracy modifier depending on the penetration could work, however this would technically not account for penetration changing based on distance. I assume no one would notice, but it is not quite correct as well.

Certainly, using features already present is better than hacking something together. And honestly probably just better in general considering the game wouldn't have to call on a variable for every instance of a weapon firing.