Jump to content
JSj

Fire suppression from small arms discussion

Recommended Posts

What makes items obscenely expensive is the servicing and maintenance that the contractors ensure that they build into the products.  Like when your fridge goes bad after a couple years use and it costs $600 to change a circuit board - and of course you have to get a contractor to do that - god forbid they make a fridge so that a customer could service it.  Cars are going the same way now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 3:31 PM, Erwin said:

Cars are going the same way now...

From what I have heard from car owners, they began doing that 20-30 years ago. And every computer I've ever owned has come with a proviso that it must be serviced by an authorized service representative or the warrantee is voided.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erwin said:

How long b4 hospitals start doing the same thing?   "Sorry, you went to an unapproved doctor, your insurance is now void at this hospital."

Insurance has been that way for 20-30 years now too.  Not Hospital specific per say but managed care limited you to a set list of doctors - which is the same thing.

As for cars, I remember when changing a headlight involved unscrewing the old one and putting a new one in.  Now it requires special tools and usually taking apart half of the bumper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dynaman216 said:

As for cars, I remember when changing a headlight involved unscrewing the old one and putting a new one in.  Now it requires special tools and usually taking apart half of the bumper.

Every year manufacturers are adding more model specific tools to automobile components not to mention locking down the software needed to what was once thought of as routine diagnostics. It's progress I guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Erwin said:

Obviously it's a question of who decides what is interesting.  Reminds me of the happy old days of the Soviet Union.  Good times.

Oh, shove it. If someone sees that the topic is about suppression from small arms, that's the discussion they should see when they open the topic - not a bunch of grumblings about health insurance and car repairs. 

Edited by LukeFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Oh, shove it. If someone sees that the topic is about suppression from small arms, that's the discussion they should see when they open the topic - not a bunch of grumblings about health insurance and car repairs. 

Get em, Luke. 😃 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 6:31 PM, Erwin said:

 

I apologize. I had replied to this thread and didn't realize it is an old thread. I want to withdraw my remarks, I dont want to make anyone mad. Thanks

Edited by J Bennett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2019 at 1:55 PM, LukeFF said:

Oh, shove it. If someone sees that the topic is about suppression from small arms, that's the discussion they should see when they open the topic - not a bunch of grumblings about health insurance and car repairs. 

There are many topics that go off in weird directions, but only certain ones that upset certain people seem to get criticised.  Some people get irritated. Others find em interesting.  I'll start keeping a better look out for the other off topic threads and bring them to your attention so as to help you make sure you can police them as well.  Thank you for your service.

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic a little, the second-order consequence of fatigue is that you won't be able to move Quick or Fast when you really need to - in situations where you need to move up to support a fight, to get the hell away from incoming spotting rounds or when you've gleefully wandered into a kill zone. It doesn't directly hinder your shooting, but it can certainly degrade your ability to fight, albeit indirectly.

In a similar vein - the Leadership stat of the HQ unit doesn't help your subordinate squads recover from suppression (counter-intuitively for wargamers), only the active C2 link matters. On the other hand, a high leadership HQ unit will itself stay unsuppressed longer, meaning that it will keep C2 links active for longer under fire, so the second-order effect is more or less the same thing.

 

Edited by domfluff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, domfluff said:

the second-order consequence of fatigue is that you won't be able to move Quick or Fast when you really need to

Couldn't agree more.  Am always surprised that many seem to FAST move most of the time.  It seems to work for them(?)  If not under fire, I use MOVE mostly.  Then QUICK... with FAST reserved for emergency situations or when crossing a dangerous area of ground when you definitely do not want troops to stop and fire at targets.  

The wonderful thing about QUICK for AT teams, is that if close enuff to enemy armor they will often stop and fire and kill a tank at short range b4 continuing to the final waypoint.

HUNT has become the least used or useful (for larger formations) as many times you do not want troops to stop when fired upon.  I find that HUNT is mostly useful for recon teams since you usually want them to stop and HIDE if fired upon.

Uh oh...  Just realized... this topic is about fire suppression not movement issues.  Apologies for being off-topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 6:31 PM, Erwin said:

What makes items obscenely expensive is the servicing and maintenance that the contractors ensure that they build into the products.  

Not part of a nuclear submarine design and construction contract. The vast majority of submarine maintenance is done at government shipyards by government employees. The private shipyards do some small minor or emergent jobs. These aren't big bucks by any means. In addition a VIRGINIA submarine costs in the ballpark of $3.2B. The "contractor's" part of that is in the neighborhood of $1B+. That includes subcontracting for CFE (contractor furnished equipment), like valves and pipe.  There is a LOT of GFE in a sub. (government furnished equipment). Of course, for much of that equipment, other contractors build them and supply them to the shipyard. The Navy, however, drives a hard bargain, and for nuclear subs, they are being delivered ahead of schedule (on an ever decreasing schedule) and under budget. It's a program where taxpayers are getting their money's worth, with good accounting.

Circuit board replacements are done by the crew. From spare parts they stock and carry on the ship. 

I don't know about other weapons systems contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2019 at 2:56 AM, Erwin said:

Couldn't agree more.  Am always surprised that many seem to FAST move most of the time.  It seems to work for them(?)  If not under fire, I use MOVE mostly.  Then QUICK... with FAST reserved for emergency situations or when crossing a dangerous area of ground when you definitely do not want troops to stop and fire at targets.  

It usually works due to the short distance that needs to be traveled to contact in most scenarios and there being only a single line of the enemy to deal with.  In those cases I usually fast move to contact but in scenarios with a LOOONG way to go I walk them most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2018 at 1:47 AM, John Kettler said:

My understanding is that in battle, troops seldom actually see the foe. Rather, they are taking fire from some area and responding to that. A Vietnam era infantry manual I once had clearly showed an SL directing fire and defining the left and right limits of what's to be suppressed in order to do so. Things may've changed since then, chiefly on the US end because of widely proliferated telescopic sights, but unless there's a visible foe, it's back to aiming at muzzle flashes, dirt puffs, flying grass and the like as indicators of where fire is coming from before the reports from that fire are heard. Common sense would suggest that if a target can be seen well enough to put a round within a meter of it, perhaps the better course would simply be to shoot that particular individual foe or put a burst into a team or weapon crew.

Based on my readings of WWII memoirs and also a few Vietnam accounts, I fully agree with this. You can also watch very relevant videos of real combat footage of recent conflicts on youtube. The experience of modern fire combat often seems to be one of being exposed to a more or less abstract "volume of fire". Especially, but not exclusively in dense terrain (woods, jungle...). Troops couldn't always tell the direction from which it was coming nor identify/spot the source. Soldiers in WWII did also (and were sometimes encouraged to) fire without seeing the enemy. I suppose that being exposed to a high volume of fire - not neccessarily to any actual "suppression effect" (seeing the effect of bullets hitting close), just judging from the number of sounds/noise - would also be a psychological deterrent. Even if you're not acively pinned by the opponent's fire, you'd be less likely to risk any attack if the enemy "sounded" strong?    

I'm not sure whether fire fights in Combat Mission fully convince me in this regard. But it's generally hard to visualize the dynamics of modern fire combat and there is certainly a lot of variety. I sometimes get the impression that our pixel infantrymen might be a bit too brave when it comes to exposing themselves to enemy fire, and perhaps a bit too good when it comes to spotting the enemy when under fire. These two things are probably related, which is also why further experiments with modding animations might be interesting (forcing soldiers to stay prone more). Infantrymen in Combat Mission are very often able to fire on sight, with the result that casualties accumulate very fast and fire fights are decided comparatively quickly. For example, how often do you order a MG unit to move to an alternate fire position? In my experience, fire fights usually don't last long enough (by the time they would reach the new position, the engagement is already over) and 2) as soon as they move, they get shot. By contrast, if both sides were more affected by the "volume of fire", firing blindly to a greater degree, you'd expect casualties to accumulate slowlier, as a kind of "attrition". Soldiers would get hit by "anonymous" bullets more often, accidently, if you will. Partial cover would be more effective in this situation (it is of no great help when the enemy has spotted you...).

I sometimes wonder why these situations don't occur in Combat Mission. As far as I know, Combat Mission does not take into account the more "abstract", indirect psychological factors. It does model the actual "suppression" effect, but not the psychological impact of a "high volume of fire". (Similarly, I think there is no tank shock/panic in Combat Mission). Depending on a unit's morale, the mere sound of intensive firing (within a certain distance/radius) could have an impact on morale and the will to advance. So this would be a more long-term "environmental" factor compared to the more extreme and direct "suppression" effect when the unit is targeted by accurate fire. I suppose that MGs are also part of the reason. They're quite handicapped by the fact that they can only area-target a single square per minute. They can only cover very small areas. Another point to think about would be the bonus for spotting units that are firing. And then of course the distance at which engagements take place also play a big role. Another rather weird thought: what about the lack of a "crouched movement"? Perhaps units would be able to advance closer to each other without getting spotted (staying below the height of the terrain type), so that both sides would be more likely to find themselves in a situation in which they can area fire at each other at closer distances? Also, when exposed to fire, a soldier's accuracy should drop drastically? Just very hypothetical brainstorming here, free of any considerations how it would affect gameplay as a whole ... 

So, for the further discussion, I would be interested in your opinions on these questions: 

1) Should a perceived high volume of fire have a psychological effect, even if it's blind/inaccurate (not covered by the actual suppression mechanic)?

2) Does CM infantry engaged in fire combat spot too well? If so, why? 

Edited by Kaunitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

Also, when exposed to fire, a soldier's accuracy should drop drastically?

Actually this is modelled to some extent, because accuracy drops as the suppression meter fills up. However, it takes a very big amount of fire to make the meter increase, and it very quickly resets once fire stops. I think it should fill faster and empty slower, unless troop quality, leadership, motivation etc. are high.

52 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

2) Does CM infantry engaged in fire combat spot too well? If so, why? 

Yes. Because tunnel vision doesn't seem to be modelled. I haven't tested this, but it seems to me troops can aim and fire at a spotted target, and it doesn't make them less likely to spot another target. In real life, once you're looking down your sights, you lose awareness of what's going on to the sides.

Also, there's the game engine quirk that fully suppressed troops "wake up" from suppression once enemies get close than about 90 metres. Then they often stop cowering, spot and engage approaching enemies. I have tested this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

However, it takes a very big amount of fire to make the meter increase, and it very quickly resets once fire stops. I think it should fill faster and empty slower, unless troop quality, leadership, motivation etc. are high.

It resets really fast yes. Much faster than in CM1 where you could get pinned for several minutes. It felt that the various status/morale effect were more "sticky". Now a unit stops receiving incoming fire for 30 seconds and it is often back to normal it feels like. Maybe a slight exaggeration on my part but I remember it surprised me when I made the transition from CM1 to CM2 how fast they recovered from suppression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

a unit stops receiving incoming fire for 30 seconds and it is often back to normal it feels like. Maybe a slight exaggeration on my part but I remember it surprised me when I made the transition from CM1 to CM2 how fast they recovered from suppression.

I agree.  In my experience your 30 second rule is accurate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Actually this is modelled to some extent, because accuracy drops as the suppression meter fills up. However, it takes a very big amount of fire to make the meter increase, and it very quickly resets once fire stops. I think it should fill faster and empty slower, unless troop quality, leadership, motivation etc. are high.

Yes. Because tunnel vision doesn't seem to be modelled. I haven't tested this, but it seems to me troops can aim and fire at a spotted target, and it doesn't make them less likely to spot another target. In real life, once you're looking down your sights, you lose awareness of what's going on to the sides.

Also, there's the game engine quirk that fully suppressed troops "wake up" from suppression once enemies get close than about 90 metres. Then they often stop cowering, spot and engage approaching enemies. I have tested this.

These are all very interesting points.

I share the observation that in some situations the suppression bar takes quite a while to fill up if no casualties are inflicted. I think our last PBEM was a great example for that, when my 2-3 heavy MGs were firing at your platoon that was advancing over open but sloped (bad for MG, no grazing) ground and quite miserably failed to pin you down or cause any casualties at all. Now, in this case, the distance was very far (500-600m?) and the fire not too accurate, so I guess it was okay that my MGs did not stop the advance. However, I also wondered whether the fact that your soldiers were spread out quite a lot played a role here. I guess that the suppressive effect is smaller when the bullets hit close to only one soldier, with the rest of the squad being farther away? Generally speaking, it seems as if very accurate and high volumes of fire are required to prevent enemy movements in Combat Mission. 

I wonder whether troops should go prone immediately whenever bullets impact the ground anywhere close, except if they have an active "fast" order (and are thus highly unlikely to spot the source of the incoming fire). With a gradual build-up of suppression and the standard reaction to incoming fire ("quick") units are often able to make a lot of ground even if under fire and they have a good chance to spot the source of the incoming fire (in quick move, they're still upright, standing). It seems more plausible to me that you would hit the ground immediately (and then of course have troubles to figure out where the fire was coming from, with their eyes on the ground level...). 

Edited by Kaunitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the way it was in CM1. I don't want to harp on too much about the old CM1, but I find it interesting how the modelization of infantry combat has evolved between the two. Troops would go to ground much more easily. Soldiers would go down and stay prone, often pinned for several turns if incoming fire was too heavy. Advancing against enemy fire was a struggle. It really was. It can be argued that it was too punishing. Now personally I think the pendulum has swung too much in the other direction though, but that's just my opinion. Others might disagree.

You should give it a try. It hasn't aged too well visually to be fair. The graphics were never cutting edge even when it was released but now it looks really dated and there are lots of things that CM2 does better. But I think you might quite like the way it does infantry combat. And I don't mean "if you don't like it, go play CM1". You might find it interesting, that's all. I have been reading your posts on the forum and often share your point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...