Kill/Suppression radius for Mortars

[evancv2011]

Just out of curiosity what is the Kill/Suppression radius for Mortars in CM??

I know it depends on a lot of factors, for example the size of the round, type of ground the shell lands on, etc.

But it seems like it would be useful knowledge.

Is there a chart somewhere showing this info?

Cheers, evancv2011

[womble]

Not only is it variable, it's random. I've had an 81mm land next to a team and not kill anyone (though they were pinned), whereas a 60mm has managed to kill 4 guys from 20m out to 60m from the impact point, and wound another, further away, without pinning any of the 3 affected teams.

[Bulletpoint]

HE modelling in this game could be improved or tweaked, I think...

To me, it subjectively seems too weak when the shell hits the target directly, and a bit too powerful at range.

[AlexUK]

From a non-expert point of view, I agree. It seems like shrapnel is modelled, but not blast effect?

Although having said that, they are already pretty deadly, so making them even more powerful could imbalance the game?

[Bulletpoint]

High-explosive shells are shown as weak in this game, even houses won't get holes in the roofs or walls when hit, unless hit repeatedly. Free-standing walls also shake off hits, until they collapse suddenly from some random dice roll when enough shells hit far away from them. Gun positions will sometimes survive shells that dig the soil out under them and leave them sitting in the crater. Bocage will be left hanging like rope bridges over shell holes big enough to hide a tank in.

For people who say this is done for gameplay balance, my reply would be that I personally prefer realism over gameplay balance, and that the balance can be achieved by adjusting artillery accuracy, availability, points costs, time to deliver, etc. Right now we have tactical-level combat with strategic-layer bombardment options - and the right answer is not to make that artillery arrive as damp sqibs. Make artillery scarce and make it something to fear.

[Baneman]

From a non-expert point of view, I agree. It seems like shrapnel is modelled, but not blast effect?

...

I agree that the lack of blast effects makes anomalies more obvious ie. people surviving a shell landing practically between their feet.

[Fizou]

Remember that HE is nerfed to counter the fact that units bunch up and are not as spread out as IRL. I think is about right.

[Rafter11]

I was an 81 mm mortar section leader in Vietnam. The book killing radius for an HE 81 warhead was 35 meters against troops in the open. I never saw 60 mm mortar, but have read that it's similar kill radius was 20 meters. While the Vietnam Era rounds had been improved for range over the WWII rounds, I suspect the killing radius remained pretty much the same.

[YankeeDog]

Lethality and suppression radius for mortar rounds and other ordnance in the game is closely modeled on real world data, so the easiest thing to do is just google and read up on stats. Here's a handy graphic chart for mortar round lethal radius. It's actually for modern ordnance, but the lethal radius of mortar bombs has improved only slightly since WWII -- the post-WWII improvements in mortar ordnance have mostly been in the the areas of fusing (e.g., radio proximity fuses), range, and accuracy.

[JoMac]

Agree with most here that HE is alittle to leathal, especially after looking at the Lethality Charts.

I like the Idea of it being Variable, but not the Random factor so much.

However, with CM's abstracted Nerfed HE affects, It probably doesnt matter where your individual troops are located in the surrounding Action Spots ( bunched or seperated ) but rather how many are suppose to be casualties (depending of all factors ) with die-rolls randomly determing who it will be.

Joe

[YankeeDog]

I dunno... sometimes, I see things that make me wonder if HE does seem too lethal.

Then again, last night I blew ~ 50 x 81mm rounds (2 separate point target, 2 tube, heavy, short missions), 12 x 60mm mortar rounds (direct lay targeted), and 6 x 75mm HE tank gun rounds on a single AT gun (behind bocage, but not dug in), and still failed to kill it. Suppressed it for quite a while, and I'm sure a few of the crew are dead, but as of now, it's still shooting back.

In general, my HE seems to be nerfed. My opponent's always seems to be uber.

[db_zero]

I've had all of the above and just learned to deal with it. I had an 81mm shell explode some distance from a MG and kill it while others have fell nearly on to it and done nothing.

I have a mirrored game going on and my Firefly shell hit and do nothing, while my opponent Firefly fires from the same position and kills 2 of my tank with 2 shots.

Its just the way things go sometimes.

In an ideal world we would have proper infantry spacing and ability to move spread out and shells that are not nerfed, but we're not yet there.

[Vanir Ausf B]

HE is far too lethal against infantry prone on almost any terrain, except maybe pavement. I have tested 60mm mortars and found them to be more than twice as lethal as the US army says they should be in that circumstance. Whether this is a problem with the HE itself or the micro-terrain cover bonuses being too small is unknown, but I suspect it is the terrain.

OTOH, as mentioned above, towed AT and AA guns are sometimes able to absorb incredible amounts of HE and remain functional. Again, it's not clear if the problem lies with the HE or the guns.

My impression is that lethal effects on non-prone infantry is roughly correct, although there is not enough suppression and it wears off too quick, IMO.

[Ithikial_AU]

Never thought it a big issue but it did tweak my interest reading a number of first hand accounts and unit histories over the last year or so while researching some scenarios I've wanted to make. You get stories like (yes I'm paraphrasing):

"the Germans laid down a terrible mortar and 88mm barrage across our company lines that lasted twenty minutes. When it was all over, five of our boys were done for."

There's me thinking... nope in CM my company would be done for even if it was just a light constant fire. Catching troops in the open and on the move, but also seen some odd results when my troops are cowering in their fox holes and trenches.

Good tip that seems to work for me - If you know you can't escape an incoming barrage then hit the hide command. At least your pixeltruppen will keep there heads down in their holes and trenches rather than 'popping' up for a spotting check every few seconds unless fully pinned.

[JoMac]

Never thought it a big issue but it did tweak my interest reading a number of first hand accounts and unit histories over the last year or so while researching some scenarios I've wanted to make. You get stories like (yes I'm paraphrasing):

"the Germans laid down a terrible mortar and 88mm barrage across our company lines that lasted twenty minutes. When it was all over, five of our boys were done for.

Yeap, and read similar accounts...When a Heavy Mortar Barrage starts coming down, just lay on the ground for several minutes till its over, then start moving again ( lost a few troops in the process ).

[MikeyD]

Mortars and artillery have been deliberately downgraded to compensate for units' requirement to stick to single 'action squares' instead of spreading out (a game engine must). So the affect of mortars approximates the affect mortars would have on a team that was properly deployed. Its a small concession to game engine mechanics.

That being said, I've had entire teams and more wiped out in an instant from one lucky shell burst. The game models things we can scarcely imagine. I believe soft ground is more likely to absorb the affects of an explosion than hard ground. Tree burst are more lethal than ground bursts. I believe the amount of HE filler in a particular shell is taken into consideration (that's why rockets are so darned lethal). There's a lot going on under the hood.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I believe soft ground is more likely to absorb the affects of an explosion than hard ground.

Unfortunately, it is not (tested). I would love to see that changed.

I believe the amount of HE filler in a particular shell is taken into consideration (that's why rockets are so darned lethal).

IIRC, with rockets a certain amount of unburned fuel is assumed.

[Michael Emrys]

IIRC, with rockets a certain amount of unburned fuel is assumed.

Seems unlikely. With unguided rockets, the fuel is used up by the time it reaches the top of its arc. That's why it starts down again.

Michael

[akd]

Unfortunately, it is not (tested). I would love to see that changed.

Then you should report it along with tests.

[Baneman]

Insanely difficult to test, but I've not noticed treebursts be particularly deadly

But I have noticed myself buying more and more 120mm mortars and cutting back on the 81's since the HE effects dropped off. Nowadays I only buy offboard 81mm if I want lots of smoke.

This is mostly based on observing my own forces take little to no casualties from major "stonks" and extrapolating that onto what effect I may be having on the enemy.

Personally I think the HE has been dialled back too far - in a game recently, the opening 2-4 turns ( I was the defender ) was a major barrage across my front ( reasonably strongly held ie. there were plenty of troops under it all ) and I lost 2 men total. Considering that was at least 3-5 batteries, it seemed woefully ineffective.

But that's just me and totally subjective.

[JoMac]

Insanely difficult to test, but I've not noticed treebursts be particularly deadly

But I have noticed myself buying more and more 120mm mortars and cutting back on the 81's since the HE effects dropped off. Nowadays I only buy offboard 81mm if I want lots of smoke.

This is mostly based on observing my own forces take little to no casualties from major "stonks" and extrapolating that onto what effect I may be having on the enemy.

Personally I think the HE has been dialled back too far - in a game recently, the opening 2-4 turns ( I was the defender ) was a major barrage across my front ( reasonably strongly held ie. there were plenty of troops under it all ) and I lost 2 men total. Considering that was at least 3-5 batteries, it seemed woefully ineffective.

But that's just me and totally subjective.

Nice, atleast in your particular game you got closer to RL Casualty Rates for a Barrage or three of Arty...Remember, your the Defender and will most likely not receive much in the way of Casualties any ways.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Then you should report it along with tests.

Well... yeah. The problem is that although I know HE on soft ground should have lowered effects I don't know by how much. And I would probably have to redo the tests as they are 2 years old now. I'll put it in my que.

[Warts 'n' all]

High-explosive shells are shown as weak in this game, even houses won't get holes in the roofs or walls when hit, unless hit repeatedly. Free-standing walls also shake off hits, until they collapse suddenly from some random dice roll when enough shells hit far away from them. /QUOTE]

Being a bit of a Luddite I don't know much about computer modelling. But the way I see things is this....

Roofs :- They will get holes. But I think that there are only "visually" four states a roof can be in, Destroyed, Damaged, Slightly Damaged and, Undamaged. The damage is shown as spreading from the centre of the roof rather than the point of impact. And it only shows up visually when a certain percentage of damage has occurred. Given the fact that there are hundreds of slates or tiles on a roof, if one mortar or artillery round lands on the roof and kills or wounds the men inside the building, the roof will still appear undamaged because only a small amount of slates or tiles will have been broken or displaced. It will take repeated hits for the damage to show up.

Walls :- The effects on walls aren't random. They are treated more like a blank canvas in the case of direct hits from bullets, shells etc. Each hit will slightly change the appearance of the wall, light grey, dark grey, smaller, bigger etc until the wall collapses. But, the effects of blast are far more difficult to show. They have to be calculated and stored in the computers memory as a percentage until the wall falls down. Blast causes a wall to buckle. For example, if the bricks move one way the doors will get blown off of their hinges, if the bricks move another way the lintel comes down on top of the door jamb and the door is stuck fast. Also, the walls will either sink inwards from their foundations, or bend outwards. Given that a building is represented in the game as a perfect rectangle, it would need a whole new building image to show this in game. In the same way that the game doesn't include bay windows, oriel windows, or french chateaus and manor houses with round towers, it can't depict the bowing of walls caused by blast.

Perhaps one of the designers could put us right if I have gotten this wrong.

[Bulletpoint]

Roofs :- They will get holes. But I think that there are only "visually" four states a roof can be in, Destroyed, Damaged, Slightly Damaged and, Undamaged. The damage is shown as spreading from the centre of the roof rather than the point of impact. And it only shows up visually when a certain percentage of damage has occurred. Given the fact that there are hundreds of slates or tiles on a roof, if one mortar or artillery round lands on the roof and kills or wounds the men inside the building, the roof will still appear undamaged because only a small amount of slates or tiles will have been broken or displaced. It will take repeated hits for the damage to show up.

Surely the roof of a regular house should go at least from "undamaged" to "somewhat damaged" when hit by a 105mm shell?

[Pak40]

Surely the roof of a regular house should go at least from "undamaged" to "somewhat damaged" when hit by a 105mm shell?

It does under the hood, but since the roof "health" is abstracted as a whole there are only so many graphic stages they can include in the game. However, it would be nice to have a 'hit decal' similar to what has been implemented for the tanks to show the damage. This would purely be a graphical change that would satisfy our visual senses; the actual damage model would still be abstracted.

Maybe when CMx3 engine is developed they can make damage modeling less abstract. Perhaps with some sort of voxel type design?