Matrix Games Forums

Some questions about smokes in AB vs thermal sight.

1) Thermal sight degradation peformance
I know the WP can degrade thermal in limited degree. (https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/fullte ... 1&id=25949) May I ask how much in this game? Are there any standard of smoke thickness vs thermal sight performance data in this game? I remember someone did this test during beta but I forget... From my personal experience, in AB, it seems that 500m+ thickness smoke shows good interference against thermals, all I can see is only yellow icons. Are there any data for smoke thickness vs thermal performance?

2) Smoke: artillery vs unit
Does the smoke from tanks or IFVs or infantry block the thermal sight completely (one with pop smoke command) Or is this the same with artillery/mortar smoke?

3) Smoke from smoke generator
I think smoke from smoke generator cannot block thermal in game, right?

4) WP smoke's ability to "clear" infantry
I guess this has been discussed before. I assume all artillery / mortar smoke munitions in AB are WP, because HC smoke cannot degrade thermal. In this case, for WP smokes, how about give some ability to kill infantry, and give some random chance to burn the tile? Because that is what WP does in the air = ignite violently.

5) Any plan to mix HC and WP smokes?
As far as I know, WP and HC smokes were mixed during operation. (https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/smoke.htm) But currently, all smoke in AB seems WP shells, right? Then... how about give some random chance of WP and HC in smoke? This could balance the damage from smoke munitions, if WP damage to infantry is modeled in this game. It would reduce the smoke ability to interfere the thermals, but this can be fixed by increasing the number of the smoke shells rounds per one artillery or mortar.

One thing to add: RP is much better to obscure infrared than WP. WP's ability to interfere or block infrared is somewhat limited when compared to RP-based aerosol smokes or something similar. http://oldcrows.org.au/files/2008%20Con ... 20Smit.pdf
That is why I'm curious about current AB's smoke performance against thermal sight: how much in-game smoke can interfere IR sights?

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

1) Thermal sight degradation peformance
I know the WP can degrade thermal in limited degree. (https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/fullte ... 1&id=25949) May I ask how much in this game? Are there any standard of smoke thickness vs thermal sight performance data in this game? I remember someone did this test during beta but I forget... From my personal experience, in AB, it seems that 500m+ thickness smoke shows good interference against thermals, all I can see is only yellow icons. Are there any data for smoke thickness vs thermal performance?

Since we don't have WP as such in the game, I assume that we're talking about Thermal Imaging (TI) smoke from smoke shells. This type of smoke has a different icon, and you can see 'TI' in the terrain info box, for example 'OBSCURANTS (99 TI)'.

In the unit specs window, you can see the 'Obscurants' value for every weapon. This negative number tells how much smoke/dust it can negate. First all standard smoke/dust is negated, and then TI smoke is negated, but 50% less efficiently.

So, it always depends on the case: Does the weapon have the night vision and TI capability, and how much standard/TI smoke/dust there is when the LOS is calculated.

2) Smoke: artillery vs unit
Does the smoke from tanks or IFVs or infantry block the thermal sight completely (one with pop smoke command) Or is this the same with artillery/mortar smoke?

All smoke shells are 'TI smoke' as long as they burn.

3) Smoke from smoke generator
I think smoke from smoke generator cannot block thermal in game, right?

Smoke generator smoke is not 'TI smoke'.

4) WP smoke's ability to "clear" infantry
I guess this has been discussed before. I assume all artillery / mortar smoke munitions in AB are WP, because HC smoke cannot degrade thermal. In this case, for WP smokes, how about give some ability to kill infantry, and give some random chance to burn the tile? Because that is what WP does in the air = ignite violently.

5) Any plan to mix HC and WP smokes?
As far as I know, WP and HC smokes were mixed during operation. (https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/smoke.htm) But currently, all smoke in AB seems WP shells, right? Then... how about give some random chance of WP and HC in smoke? This could balance the damage from smoke munitions, if WP damage to infantry is modeled in this game. It would reduce the smoke ability to interfere the thermals, but this can be fixed by increasing the number of the smoke shells rounds per one artillery or mortar.

Yes it has been discussed, but there's no clear plan how this should be simulated. I think it's not a good idea to make all smoke shells kill infantry and burn terrain?

ORIGINAL: Veitikka
Since we don't have WP as such in the game, I assume that we're talking about Thermal Imaging (TI) smoke from smoke shells. This type of smoke has a different icon, and you can see 'TI' in the terrain info box, for example 'OBSCURANTS (99 TI)'.

In the unit specs window, you can see the 'Obscurants' value for every weapon. This negative number tells how much smoke/dust it can negate. First all standard smoke/dust is negated, and then TI smoke is negated, but 50% less efficiently.

So, it always depends on the case: Does the weapon have the night vision and TI capability, and how much standard/TI smoke/dust there is when the LOS is calculated.

Thank you, I will check this out when I go home today.

Yes it has been discussed, but there's no clear plan how this should be simulated. I think it's not a good idea to make all smoke shells kill infantry and burn terrain?

How about developing various models for smokes in the future? Instead of just "TI smoke", how about applying "HC smoke", "WP smoke", and "RP smoke"? And in the future, something like "RP + aerosol + metal particle smoke" can be included, which fully blocks IR and interfere MMW in some degree.

From my readings:
1) HC smoke is the most widely applied mechanism for most of smoke shell and smoke nades. It is cheap and safe, but no ability to block IR or MMW at all.
2) WP smoke is capable of blocking IR in limited degree. Problem of WP is it violently reacts in the air, burn very quickly in high intensity. This makes WP good weapon, and good smoking material to engage the smoke filed in relatively short time. But because it burns quick, ability to interfere IR diminishes too quickly.
3) RP smoke is very good to block IR, and it burns slower but steadily when compared to WP. That makes RP ideal IR-blocking material. RP is toxic, but less toxic than WP.
4) These days, more complicated soft-kill systems like RP with aerosol and metal particles and etc...are used, to ensure the blocking of wide range of radiations.
For cold war, I guess #4 would not be possible (but if you make the system available, people will make a mod for it). As far as I know, majority of artillery smokes were #1 and #2 during cold war.
When smoke is deployed, how about putting some random number, so that HC or WP randomly appears on the tile-in-effect? As far as I know, artillery smoke in SB Pro is something similar, but this depends on scenario designer.

Or, it would be possible to regard "normal smoke" as "HC smoke" which is safe but no ability to harm structure or people and cannot block IR.

Regarding WP and its damage, how about introduce chance based system? Give WP a small chance to damage infantry in the tile-in-effect, and a small chance to burn wood or structure in the tile. Also, it would be good to give some "lethal time" of WP from the moment when it is deployed. Many reports says artillery-delivered WP is dangerous enough to damage people and structure, but I'm not sure how much and how long. This needs some literature search.

Then, it would be possible to distinguish and clarify "WP smoke" from "normal smoke" (HC + WP or HC only), which shots "WP" shells only. Add "launch WP smoke", then this can offer the effect of "something similar to weaker version of napalm" + "concealment" + "slight IR interference".

Then it could model more realistic smoke field.